Does God exist?

Comments

• That is right. Even "Godless" societies has been responsible for wars.
  The thing is, many claim to represent God but they disown Him by their works. (Titus 1:16)

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 11th, 2011

• Gods are little more than an easy excuse for acting like a proper bastard, your religion makes you no more or less capable or likely to be a genocidal maniac, theists often miss this point whilst they try to lay claim to moral superiority.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 12th, 2011

• I belong to the Christian Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses. We all have a pre-determined stance not to kill one another. Not even our enemy. So you can't lump everyone in the same category. But I am with you when you denounce such horrific behavior. We often point to examples of Catholic/Protestant and Orthodox churches who have done unspeakable things "in the name of God." They misrepresent God and will receive heavier judgment.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 12th, 2011

• All religions at one point or another have had dark periods in their history, precious few exist because they were born of pacifism.
  In any case, no religion imparts superior morality upons its adherents, we can choose to be moral or immoral regardless.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 13th, 2011

• The religion that REALLY follows God's Word the Bible, that worships God with "spirit and truth," (John 4:24) is the religion that is true.
  
  Yes, people have a choice to be moral or immoral. If one chooses to be "immoral" they should not be surprised if they experience consequences for their course. Ultimately, we all "reap what we sow."

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 14th, 2011

• I've yet to find one religion that doesn't claim to be the one 'true' religion, or indeed one that can offer verifiable evidence to prove it.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 14th, 2011

• Pocketnut--I suggest that each religion by definition believes itself to be the One True Religion. If they did not think so,well,they'd believe something else. No one would follow a religion they did not think true. Yes?

  • Report
  

  by mikepipe on March 17th, 2011

• Nice point Mikepipe. Pocketnut, Jesus said that we can know the truth and the truth would, "set us free." (John 8:31, 32) Free from what? Any thoughts?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 17th, 2011

• Mikepipe- Yes I agree with you, all religions view themselves as the one true religion, however not one has any definitive proof, or indeed a scrap of evidence.
  
  Nick- Jesus is said to have said that, there is little evidence to suggest that he actually did, I know what I want to be free of though, other people meddling in my life on the grounds that they believe they have been granted authority to do so by an invisible man in the sky.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 18th, 2011

• Pocket-You're right about lack of evidence. The difficulty is that an agreed upon standard is required for evidence to begin to work. The believer and nonbeliever both look at the same stuff,the world and all thats in it. But we then deduce opposed and mutually exclusive conclusions.

  • Report
  

  by mikepipe on March 18th, 2011

• Oh,and to John 8:31. I suspect it means to be set free from fear and bondage to to physical world.

  • Report
  

  by mikepipe on March 18th, 2011

• Good answer. However, this would include spiritual bondage. False teachings, man-made traditions, and superstitions.
  
  I don't understand the reasoning that by pocketnut that there is little evidence that Jesus said these words. There is ample evidence Jesus existed and most informed Historians do not dare challenge this fact.
  
  BTW, our Creator is a spirit, not a man. You have a choice to believe in God. It is entirely up to you. It is good to consider the marvels of life around us that point to intelligence, not chance.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 18th, 2011

• Yes spiritual bondage too. For certain the person Jesus existed. The authenticity for the words we have and the accounts of his deeds may be a different matter. And yes we do have a choice in belief or disbelief. But beliefs can be mistaken. This is the difficulty. Certainly there are marvels,great marvels in life. There is also great horrors too. Your theology must account for both. Finally the choice is not between design and chance but between design and selection.

  • Report
  

  by mikepipe on March 18th, 2011

• I like this comment. Yes, we do have a choice and it should be based on solid evidence. The Bible presents that. The Bible gives satisfying answers to even life's toughest questions. The problem is most people are not acquainted with the answers. I believe Jehovah's Witnesses can give the best Scriptural answers from my study of the Bible.
  
  Regarding "design or selection" who or what does the "selecting"?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 18th, 2011

• Selection is a process. It does not have a who.

  • Report
  

  by mikepipe on March 18th, 2011

• What proof do evolutionists provide to support the claim that natural selection chooses beneficial mutations to produce new species?
  
  Evolutionary theory attempts to eliminate the need for the impossible to be accomplished “in one blow” by espousing a step-by-step process by which natural selection could do its work gradually. However, without the genetic code to begin reproduction, there can be no material for natural selection to select.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 18th, 2011

• Selection is for sure not a perfect process. There are all sorts of faults which is what one might expect when there is not intelligence involved. But when one introduces the concept of a god,especially as Christianity proposes then from where does mistakes come from?
  
  The sequential process of simpler forms to more complex forms can be seen in fossil records. As to where the first pieces of genetic material came from and how they developed I certainly do not even remotely have enough science knowledge to attempt an answer. Perhaps others do.

  • Report
  

  by mikepipe on March 18th, 2011

• Evolutionary theory is trying to eliminate our ignorance of the many things we do not currently understand, religion is trying to perpetuate that ignorance.
  Life evolved from complex inorganic compounds called Amino Acids, which are the building blocks for all life on our planet. We know this from observation and experimentation.
  Creationists believe that god did it, no explanation required, no added knowledge, just dry, dusty, unchanging dogma, with no corroborating evidence.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 19th, 2011

• Mikepipe,
  
  If you cannot even fully explain or comprehend it how can you be so adamant it is the truth? You are not alone. In fact, NO ONE CAN.
  
  There is zero evidence of one species becoming another species. Zippo!
  
  “The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.” (Biologist Edwin Conklin)
  
  And Pocketnut,
  
  Where did those building blocks come from again and who built them?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 19th, 2011

• There are plenty of transitional fossils, creatures possessing features from two separate species as they gradually evolved into new forms.
  There are no examples of monkeys giving birth to other species, like dogs or crocodiles, chiefly because that is not how evolution works, and the teory of evolution does not predict such a thing. Creationists, with their ignorance of the facts and wishful thinking, often use this as a counter argument to scientifically proven ideas, to much derision from those who've actually bothered to read peer reviewed and up to date scientific journals.
  Edwin Conklin was wrong, we know this, and as a biologist, so should he.
  The building blocks of life are not some cosmic Lego kit, they are complex chemical compounds, formed by well understood physical laws, there is no who.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 20th, 2011

• You are absolutely wrong. The scientific data does not support your wishful conclusions whatsoever. Just because there are similarities found in species do not mean they have mutated into a new species. The missing links are still missing. Could it be because they are not there! There is no proof of macroevolution. There is built-in adaptation but the instructions did not come from blind chance but were put there by an intelligence Being.
  
  I am glad you admit the chemical compounds are "complex" they are not simple as some have tried to argue. Where did the instructions come from? Look at our DNA. Not only, where did the building blocks come from, but what about the instructions for the DNA?
  
  What is funny is we spend millions of dollars listening to space each year hoping to hear some kind of communication out there. If we had some kind of organized signal to contact us we would automatically attribute it to intelligence and some higher form of life. They would shout proof of "alien life." But we cannot see that this would be nothing compared to our own DNA blueprint and instructions. Not even close.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 20th, 2011

• Nick-Have you read The Language of God by Francis Crick? I think you'd quiet like it. Its also on audio by Dr. Crick. I suspect any good library has it.

  • Report
  

  by mikepipe on March 20th, 2011

• On the contrary, I am correct, there are species who have been seen not only to change in the fossil record from one type to another, Archaeopteryx for instance, is plainly in the latter stages of becoming a bird, but have been observed changing according to evolutionary criteria in the modern era.
  We can construct accurate family trees, which mirror the evidence in our study of DNA.
  It is thought that DNA first developed from a chemical soup in which robust chemical bonds were more survivable and led to yet more durable bonds, this has been shown to represent as accurate a model as any other.
  Thus far, there is no evidence that creationist hypotheses have any basis in reality whatsoever, and no, I do not count biblical accounts as evidence, they are hearsay only, and moreover, unverified and unverifiable.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 21st, 2011

• Thanks for the book recommendation Mikepipe. I'll look for it next time I am at a bookstore. If you haven't read it yet, check out: "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis," by Michael Denton.
  
  Pocketnut, I am not sure if you realize that most paleontologists no longer consider archaeopteryx an ancestor of modern birds. Archaeopteryx was not any “halfway” stage. It had fully developed wings perfectly feathered (not scales half developed into feathers), and had special feet equipped for perching. The relative proportions of the head and brain case are those of a bird and quite different from those of reptiles.
  
  A thoughtful study of birds gives convincing proof of the Biblical teaching that they are of divine creation. While birds and reptiles are both oviparous, reptiles are cold-blooded, often sluggish, whereas birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earth’s creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat. The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and fins eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless.
  
  No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory. As expressed by the apostle Paul, birds are of a distinct “flesh” from others of earth’s creatures. (1Corinthians 15:39)
  
  Some fossil “evidence” that was once loudly hailed as proof that birds evolved from other creatures has since been shown to have been forged. In 1999, for instance, National Geographic magazine featured an article about a fossil of a feathered creature with a tail like a dinosaur’s.
  
  The magazine declared the creature to be “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds.” The fossil, however, turned out to be a forgery, a composite of the fossils of two different animals. In fact, no such “missing link” has ever been found.
  
  I will talk more about your assumptions on DNA another time. One final thought regarding birds. The ability to fly cannot be attributed to mere chance. Thoughtful study provides convincing evidence that bird flight is of divine origin. Everything about birds—their streamlined bodies, large, light wings, special bone structure, and all the necessary instinct to handle the complexity of flight—bespeaks an intelligent Designer far superior to man. Yes, our reverence should go to this One, Jehovah God, for the miracle of bird flight. (Psalms 148:1, 7, 10)
  
  How bout another? Any other legitimate examples that you can supply at this time?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 22nd, 2011

• If anything is baseless, it is biblical literature.
  My assertions are based on peer reviewed facts and evidence which are subject to revision should they be shown to be untrue.
  Biblical accounts are based entirely upon hearsay, not even eye witness testimony, are not backed up by verifiable facts or subject to experimentation to verify or disprove them.
  Quoting from your religious text does nothing to prove your point, it simply highlights your lack of research into scietific methods.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 22nd, 2011

• The Bible has "no eye witness testimony"? How many people saw Jesus ascend to heaven? There is plenty of eye witness testimony in Scripture as well as archeological evidence. Have you ever been to the Bible lands like Israel, Egypt, Greece? I have, and seen the evidence myself. Secular history has also confirmed the accuracy of the Bible.
  
  As for Archaeopteryx, please have a look at this:
  
  http://www.weloennig.de/Archaeopteryx1abc.pdf
  
  Concerning accurate family tress you may find this of interest.
  It may be eye-opening. A must see:
  
  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/05/a_primer_on_the_tree_of_life_p_4.html

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 22nd, 2011

• Neither of those links leads to anything other than blatantly inaccurate, frequently debunked creationist myths from creationist websites. Neither are either peer reviewed, or reliable, nor are they written by people with genuine qualifications in the fields they address.
  Evolutionary theory explains why creatures mutate far more clearly than creationism ever could, and more importantly, why.
  The account of genesis was not witnessed, nor was the garden of Eden, Jesus ascending to heaven was not observed, and the gospel were written by men who claimed to have been divinely inspired, how many con-artists have tried that one before?

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 23rd, 2011

• There were references from reputable "science" journals!
  
  Wasn't good enough? What about this one?
  
  R. L. Wysong, D.V.M., in his book The Evolution-Creation Controversy, stated: "How can Archeopteryx be seriously posed as a bird-reptile link if the features that are to prove this are either possessed by true birds or absent in the reptile?"
  
  It is become abundantly clear that the findings of any scientist that does not adhere to your mindset will be quickly dismissed. I asked you if you can offer another example than Archaeopteryx. Let's put it to the test!
  
  Your "THEORY" encounters the huge problem of genetic improbability.
  
  From The Myth of Natural Origins; How Science Points to Divine Creation (Ashby Camp, Ktisis Publishing, Tempe, Arizona, 1994, pp. 53-57)
  
  Even on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available. According to Professor Ambrose, the minimum number of mutations necessary to produce the simplest new structure in an organism is five (Davis, 67-68; Bird, 1:88), but these five mutations must be the proper type and must affect five genes that are functionally related. Davis, 67-68. In other words, not just any five mutations will do. The odds against this occurring in a single organism are astronomical.
  
  Mutations of any kind are believed to occur once in every 100,000 gene replications (though some estimate they occur far less frequently). Davis, 68; Wysong, 272. Assuming that the first single-celled organism had 10,000 genes, the same number as E. coli (Wysong, 113), one mutation would exist for every ten cells. Since only one mutation per 1,000 is non-harmful (Davis, 66), there would be only one non-harmful mutation in a population of 10,000 such cells. The odds that this one non-harmful mutation would affect a particular gene, however, is 1 in 10,000 (since there are 10,000 genes). Therefore, one would need a population of 100,000,000 cells before one of them would be expected to possess a non-harmful mutation of a specific gene.
  
  The odds of a single cell possessing non-harmful mutations of five specific (functionally related) genes is the product of their separate probabilities. Morris, 63. In other words, the probability is 1 in 108 X 108 X 108 X 108 X 108, or 1 in 1040. If one hundred trillion (1014) bacteria were produced every second for five billion years (1017 seconds), the resulting population (1031) would be only 1/1,000,000,000 of what was needed!
  
  But even this is not the whole story. These are the odds of getting just any kind of non-harmful mutations of five related genes. In order to create a new structure, however, the mutated genes must integrate or function in concert with one another. According to Professor Ambrose, the difficulties of obtaining non-harmful mutations of five related genes "fade into insignificance when we recognize that there must be a close integration of functions between the individual genes of the cluster, which must also be integrated into the development of the entire organism." Davis, 68.
  In addition to this, the structure resulting from the cluster of the five integrated genes must, in the words of Ambrose, "give some selective advantage, or else become scattered once more within the population at large, due to interbreeding." Bird, 1:87. Ambrose concludes that "it seems impossible to explain [the origin of increased complexity] in terms of random mutations alone." Bird, 1:87.
  
  When one considers that a structure as "simple" as the wing on a fruit fly involves 30-40 genes (Bird, 1:88), it is mathematically absurd to think that random genetic mutations can account for the vast diversity of life on earth. Even Julian Huxley, a staunch evolutionist who made assumptions very favorable to the theory, computed the odds against the evolution of a horse to be 1 in 10300,000. Pitman, 68. If only more Christians had that kind of faith!
  
  ...continuing

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 23rd, 2011

• -continued
  
  This probability problem is not the delusion of some radical scientific fringe. As stated by William Fix:
  Whether one looks to mutations or gene flow for the source of the variations needed to fuel evolution, there is an enormous probability problem at the core of Darwinist and neo-Darwinist theory, which has been cited by hundreds of scientists and professionals. Engineers, physicists, astronomers, and biologists who have looked without prejudice at the notion of such variations producing ever more complex organisms have come to the same conclusion: The evolutionists are assuming the impossible. Fix, 196.
  Renowned French zoologist Pierre-Paul Grassé has made no secret of his skepticism:
  
  What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer's (Matt, I can't get the 'u' to go small for me there!) "Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it. Grassé, 104.
  
  In 1967 a group of internationally known biologists and mathematicians met to consider whether random mutations and natural selection could qualify as the mechanism of evolutionary change. The answer of the mathematicians was "No." Morris, 64-65; Sunderland, 128-36. Participants at the symposium, all evolutionists, recognized the need for some type of mechanism to reduce the odds against evolution. In the words of Dr. Murray Eden of M.I.T.:
  
  What I am claiming is that without some constraint on the notion of random variation, in either the properties of the organism or the sequence of the DNA, there is no particular reason to expect that we could have gotten any kind of viable form other than nonsense. Sunderland, 138.
  
  Summarizing his and Hoyle's analysis of the mechanism of evolution, Wickramasinghe states:
  
  We found that there's just no way it could happen. If you start with a simple micro-organism, no matter how it arose on the earth, primordial soup or otherwise, then if you just have that single organizational, informational unit and you said that you copied this sequentially time and time again, the question is does that accumulate enough copying errors, enough mistakes in copying, and do these accumulations of copying errors lead to the diversity of living forms that one sees on the earth. That's the general, usual formulation of the theory of evolution.... We looked at this quite systematically, quite carefully, in numerical terms. Checking all the numbers, rates of mutation and so on, we decided that there is no way in which that could even marginally approach the truth. Varghese, 28.
  
  Thus, several decades have only confirmed the observation of Gertrude Himmelfarb in her book Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution (1959):
  
  [I]t is now discovered that favorable mutations are not only small but exceedingly rare, and the fortuitous combination of favorable mutations such as would be required for the production of even a fruit fly, let alone a man, is so much rarer still that the odds against it would be expressed by a number containing as many noughts as there are letters in the average novel, "a number greater than that of all the electrons and protons in the visible universe" -- an improbability as great as that a monkey provided with a typewriter would by chance peck out the works of Shakespeare. Fix, 196.
  
  ...continuing

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 23rd, 2011

• Here are the references:
  
  Bird, W.R
  ., The Origin of Species Revisited (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1991; originally published by Philosophical Library in 1987). Bird graduated summa cum laude from Vanderbilt University and has a J.D. degree from Yale Law School. He has published articles in numerous law journals and represented the State of Louisiana in the challenge to its "creation statute." Both volumes of this work are extensively documented with references to the pertinent scientific literature.
  
  Davis, Percival and Dean H. Kenyon
  , Of Pandas and People (Dallas: Haughton Publishing Co. 1990). Davis has an M.A. degree from Columbia University and is a life science professor at Hillsborough Community College. Kenyon has a Ph.D. in biophysics from Stanford and is Professor of Biology at San Francisco State University. He is the co-author of Biochemical Predestination published by McGraw-Hill in 1969. The Academic Editor of Of Pandas and People was Charles B. Thaxton who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Iowa State University and is the co-author of The Mystery of Life's Origin published by the Philosophical Library in 1984.
  
  Fix, William R
  ., The Bone Peddlers (New York: Macmillan PUblishing, 1984). Fix has an M.A. degree in behavioral science from Simon Fraser University (Canada) and is the author of several books.
  
  Grassé, Pierre-P.,
  Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977). Grassé is France's most distinguished zoologist. Dobzhansky has described his knowledge of the living world as "encyclopedic."
  
  Morris, Henry M. and Gary E. Parker
  , What is Creation Science (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1982). Morris has a Ph.D. in hydraulic engineering from the University of Minnesota. Parker has a M.S. and Ed.D. in biology from Ball State University.
  
  Pitman, Michael
  , Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Co., 1984). Pitman has a B.A. degree in science from Open University (England), a M.A. degree in classics from Oxford, and teaches biology in Cambridge, England. The introduction is by Dr. Bernard Stonehouse, a scientist who has held academic posts at Oxford, Yale, and other prestigious universities.
  
  Sunderland, Luther D
  ., Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 3d ed. (Santee, CA: Master Book Publishers, 1984). Sunderland had a B.S. from Penn. State University and worked as an aerospace engineer with General Electric specializing in automatic flight control systems (died 1987).
  
  Varghese, Roy Abraham
  , ed., The Intellectuals Speak Out About God (Chicago: Regenery Gateway, 1984). Those quoted are Robert Jastrow and Chandra Wickramasinghe. ...Wickramisinghe is an internationally recognized authority on interstellar matter and is the head of the department of applied mathematics and astronomy at University College in Cardiff, Wales.
  
  Wysong, Randy L
  ., The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland, MI: Inquiry Press, 1976). Wysong has a B.S. and D.V.M. from Michigan State University

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 23rd, 2011

• Being smart doesn't make you right, having the right answers does, and exactly how does being an aerospace engineer qualify you to comment conclusively upon the theory of evolution?
  At best these scientists are clever people exploiting their knowledge to further the groundless fantasy of creationism, at worst they're just con-artists with spurious qualifications.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 23rd, 2011

• I hear ya. Everyone who doesn't side with you is a con-artist.
  
  What about other events recorded in history? Any eye witnesses? Why do you believe them?
  
  In his book Caesar and Christ, historian Will Durant writes:
  
  “That a few simple men should . . . have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man.”

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 23rd, 2011

• No, anyone who tries to convince me that their viewpoint is the only and best, without providing verifiable evidence, is a con-artist, or deluded, take your pick, I've heard this argument so many times before, it's getting pretty old now.
  You are essentially trying to disprove science, by taking things scientists have discovered, and battering them until they fit into the biblical box, rather than doing your own experiments, you prefer to slate Darwin, as if his words have never been superceded by later scientists.
  Darwin is not a prophet or a god, creationism is a thin tissue of easily debunked lies, if you care to research thoroughly enough and read what the scientists have actually said.
  Provide verifiable evidence to suggest that your view is correct, and I will change, if you have superior information to that which has already been shown to work, I will have no choice but to bow to reality. Simply asserting that your god made the universe because you believe he did, will not sway me at all.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on March 23rd, 2011

• What experiments have you personally conducted lately? We all know that macroevolution is not verifiable evidence but is a "theory" not proven.
  
  No one performs research in a vacuum. In addition, implying that one can is itself untestable and therefore belies the scientific method. The best one can do is recognize their epistemological and cultural leanings and work to reduce their impact.
  
  Many people today like to credit themselves as free thinkers, but are usually unaware that they may be captive to various contemporary pop philosophies. I hate to break it to you but you are not free from bias and can only at best pay lip service to the libertarian thought you espouse.
  
  If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled.
  
  In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening.
  
  No theory concerning it has been VERIFIED by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact?
  
  What gets old is people like yourself that disregard ample evidence provided that life arising by chance is not possible. If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method.
  
  There is no need for me to force feed or sway you to believe anything. All I can provide you is with counter evidence for your respected consideration. However, your position is not as slam dunk as you have been taught to believe.
  
  Even when Charles Darwin advanced his theory of evolution he conceded that life may have been “originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”
  
  (The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin, Mentor edition, 1958, p. 450)

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on March 23rd, 2011

• I'm not a believer but yes I agree. Evolution does not rule out a divine origin or occasional intervention.

  • Report
  

  by mikepipe on March 23rd, 2011

• YES, open your eyes and look around the world didn't just create it self, the sun didn't just appear out of nowhere. look out how everything is in precise order how the planets orbit the sun and how electrons orbit the nucleus theirs a pattern. Just think about it nothing can create everything. The big bang theory just doesn't make sense for example if you take a glass and you though it on the floor you'll end up with an even bigger mess. Everything has a reason people were made for a reason!! we weren't made to just live with no sense of direction or purpose!!!!

  • Report
  

  by Nora_A on May 6th, 2011

• The laws of physics govern motion and matter, you are ascribing a supernatural cause to a perfectly natural phenomenom.
  If you drop a glass of water on the floor, you end up with a mess from a human point of view. The water will evaporate, the glass will remain glass until such point as it is broken down into it's constituent parts and recombined by natural processes into the fabric of its surroundings.
  The Earth did not just make itself, matter was required, along with heat and gravity, which is incidentally how our entire solar system, and every other known solar system, was formed, and is the reason we now orbit the Sun.
  The big bang was the initial event which precipitated matter coalescing into forms capable of supporting life, it was a catalyst, not the immediate cause.
  I do not discount the idea of a creative force, but I must take into account all of the evidence, and the evidence is heavily stacked against any deity ever existing.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 7th, 2011

• How is one to explain the concurrence of multiple factors that make life on earth not only possible but also enjoyable? There appear to be only two alternatives. The first is that all these realities are the casual product of aimless chance. The second is that there is some intelligent purpose behind it. Do you really think your life doesn't matter? That all of this just happened? Of course, matter and energy, etc. was needed to make the earth but their is evidence that it was planned, created. Even things we can't see with our own eyes like DNA shows remarkable complex written instructions. Every book has an author. Think it through.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on May 7th, 2011

• Books are not naturally occur species, they're not even a species, and yet again you are ascribing things that are necessary to the function of the universe to a being for which you can produce no valid evidence. You just keep insisting that I need to think about it, as if I've never had christianity pushed upon me morning noon and night from the minute I was born, trust me, I have thought about it, very deeply, which is why I now no longer regard the christian standpoint as an adequate explanation for how things came to be.
  The universe is on the whole, hostile to life, were it made entirely for our benefit, don't you think it might not be so?

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 7th, 2011

• well look at another religion don't just give up!! until u know for sure look at this web site thedeanshow.com give it a chance don't judge!

  • Report
  

  by Nora_A on May 7th, 2011

• A book can be described as written information. Do you have an idea what kind of information is written in DNA? One gram of DNA has as much information of 1 Trillion CD's of information. Intelligence indeed! I am not pushing Christianity on you just discussing the reality around us.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on May 7th, 2011

• Since the evidence for religion is so flimsy, describing it as a reality is frankly pushing the envelope to breaking point.
  Whilst we cannot entirely discount religion as a force in the human world, the fact that our species is the only religious species does rather point to the idea that we are the only species that believes in these things.
  I don't judge, I assess which information best provides an explanation for a given circumstance, and accept the most substantial. Religion seldom has the humility to change and exhibits a certain amount of bluster and hubris when it comes to its ideas being challenged, not to mention outright fabrication to add spurious weight to its arguments.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 8th, 2011

• Of course he does. If ya really want to know what God looks like, just look into the mirror.
  
  You see theirs 3 parts to you.
  
  1. Your conscious level which is what you id as you. Your aware of what your currently reading, etc.
  
  2. Your subconscious level is what picks up stuff like a plane far above that you don't notice, but it does.
  
  3. Your higher conscious is your dreams trying to communicate w/you or the mother who knows something just happen to 1 of her kids when their 100's of miles away, or when you just know something when theirs no logical reason for you to know. Were all connected to this higher conscious, hence God.

  • Report
  

  by Iceander on May 17th, 2011

• Actually there are many more than three components to the human psyche, people have been documented as having more than twenty different personalities.
  In any case, you have no evidence to back your statement, just a lot of unfounded, semi-literate tosh dressed up as fact.
  Get back to me when you've found a fact.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 18th, 2011

• Your saying your conscious & subconscious don't exist or isn't any evidence to support either. Well if thats the case then I apoligze for wasting your time.
  
  Good day.

  • Report
  

  by Iceander on May 18th, 2011

• I am well aware of the conscious and subconscious, it is blatantly obvious that they exist, what I am disputing is your claim that they represent any kind of evidence for a deity, or substantiate your beliefs in any way.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 18th, 2011

• PocketNut,
  
  How do you explain all the instructions packed in DNA? No sign of intelligence behind it to you? If you saw your full name on sand on a beach would you think that water, wind, etc... put it there randomly? C'mon, be reasonable.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on May 18th, 2011

• It's really not as complicated as your making it. Actually it's beyond simple in a way. But us humans (being as smart as we aren't) like to complex even the simplest of things with our twisted minds.
  
  Ok, I'll do my best to give it to you straight. What I posted originally is true for 1.
  
  Your conscious mind, (which is you, the dumbest of the 3) only is able to process a tiny fraction at best of all the data your subconscious mind picks up per/sec.
  
  I believe the #'s are something like your subconscious mind takes in like 400 billion bytes per/sec. while your conscious mind can only process about 4,000 bytes per/sec.
  
  Now with that said it's more than safe to say that we don't have a clue to whats really going on even tho we think we do huh?
  
  Ok, moving forward it's also a fact that the average human uses about less than 10% of their brain & I think it's closer to less than 1% in America but just to be generous we'll give em 9%.
  
  So that's at least 91% or your brain & realistic closer to 99% of your brain not even being used. So how is it you THINK you KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANYTHING??
  
  Truth is you don't. Hence ignorance is bliss.
  
  Truth is we all have multiply personalities even tho you might lie & say no, I only have 1. Me.
  
  Well I can certainly help point out several your unaware of your self:
  
  How do you act when your all alone with your best friends? Is it the same as when your alone with your mother, or how about a new boss, or the father from church. Is this the same person when your alone with your lover..... On & on & on it goes....

  • Report
  

  by Iceander on May 19th, 2011

• @nick batchelor- So your suggesting that observable natural laws bringing about the entire universe, is less realistic than an unobservable invisible intelligence, for which there is no evidence at all? Who is being unreasonable here?
  
  @iceander- You are likewise unable to provide any evidence to back up your statement, not that you are able to make a cogent statement, since your grammar and spelling are so atrocious as to be barely intelligible, I do try not to be critical of people who lack ability in language, but when they are incapable of expressing a point clearly, it must be pointed out.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 20th, 2011

• Well English is my 3rd language, so I'm certainly not going to argue. But could you do me a favor to help me out & tell me what words I've misspelled? Because I have to say the English language is proving to be a bit challenging. Thanks

  • Report
  

  by Iceander on May 20th, 2011

• It's more that your sentence construction is difficult to comprehend, and ill researched, but 'your' is used when referring to someones possession, such as 'that is your hat', you're is a shortened version (or contraction) of 'you are'.
  In the same way, people often confuse 'their' (as in "their house"), 'they're' (as in "they are") and 'there' ("there they are"), all are pronounced the same way, but have different meanings.
  You have also used 'tho' in place of 'though', 'multiply' instead of 'multiple'.
  Now that I have re-read your comment, using different aspects of behaviour to assert that we all have multiple personalities is not at all accurate, multiple personality disorders involve people with distinct and separate personalities, who as often as not are entirely unaware of each other, if you had even the vaguest knowledge of psychology, you would know this already.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 20th, 2011

• So your saying that you act the same regardless of who your around, be it your ma or best friends, etc.? And if you do act differently isn't that a different personality?

  • Report
  

  by Iceander on May 20th, 2011

• No, I'm saying that acting differently around different people is not being in possession of multiple personalities.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 20th, 2011

• PocketNut said to nick, "So your suggesting that observable natural laws bringing about the entire universe, is less realistic than an unobservable invisible intelligence, for which there is no evidence at all? Who is being unreasonable here?"
  
  Here is a short video that touches on this.
  
  

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 20th, 2011

• Stephen Meyer explains why the Laws by themselves do not account for the information we have. Please see beginning at 1:30. Also at 3:29 is a good point to pay extra attention to and 4:25 and 5:10.
  
  I think 5:10 and on really addresses so many issues with the idea that LAWs in of themselves are what created life at some point without the need for intelligent design.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 20th, 2011

• ''The religion that REALLY follows God's Word the Bible, that worships God with "spirit and truth," (John 4:24) is the religion that is true.''
  
  Pathetic. I'm amazed that any semi-educated adult could be so disingenuous as to admit that publicly. But it does explain a lot. LOL
  
  So far, Pocketnut has posted the most credible comments here. I was about to say the ONLY credible comments, but I may have missed one or two in the chaos.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on May 25th, 2011

• Mr_Natural
  
  Credible because you like them or because they are backed up by logic?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 25th, 2011

• Is it not possible to like something because it's credible?
  In any case, as far as I can tell, the video above is arguing against the idea of predefinition, the idea that god somehow set up events prior to their ocurrence, like a pool player hitting every ball into a pocket on his first shot, not positing the view that everything is governed by an invisible, utterly undetectable being, who despite hiding his existence from humanity, still seeks to interfere in our lives.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 26th, 2011

• PocketNut
  
  Quote, "Is it not possible to like something because it's credible?"
  
  Yes and it is possible to like something because it agrees with our feelings and then deem it credible or use that as our standard or definition for credible.... My question is different.
  
  Quote, "In any case, as far as I can tell, the video above is arguing against the idea of predefinition, the idea that god somehow set up events prior to their ocurrence, like a pool player hitting every ball into a pocket on his first shot, not positing the view that everything is governed by an invisible, utterly undetectable being, who despite hiding his existence from humanity, still seeks to interfere in our lives."
  
  Please remember what you said, quote, "So your suggesting that observable natural laws bringing about the entire universe, is less realistic than an unobservable invisible intelligence, for which there is no evidence at all? Who is being unreasonable here?"
  
  You understood Nick as rejecting your idea that the universe is brought about by "observable natural laws." We can see this by you stating, "So your (Nick) suggesting that observable natural laws bringing about the entire universe, is less realistic". You have a problem with that and show a contrast with what you feel is more unrealistic, an intelligent creator.
  
  So we can see that you believe the "observable natural laws account for bringing about the universe... Thats putting the cart before the horse a bit much. Prior to the BB there was no "observable natural laws, by definition. The observable laws had not been "brought about" yet.
  
  The video I posted was to show how laws don't account for information. So that, even if you believe the physical universe came about by physical laws (that did not yet exist) information in DNA cannot be accounted for by physical laws since the arrangement is not governed by laws. This strongly supports design.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 26th, 2011

• The video is nothing more than a regurgitation of "intelligent design." The speaker admits this. Speaking of modern DNA, he asserts, "The only known cause for the origin of information is intelligence."
  
  In general, the ID argument goes like this:
  
  1. DNA is very, very complex
  
  2. Therefore, DNA couldn't have "just happened"
  
  3. Therefore, an Intelligent Designer must have created DNA (and, by extension, everything else in the universe)
  
  What else do you have?

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on May 26th, 2011

• Quote, "The video is nothing more than a regurgitation of "intelligent design." The speaker admits this. Speaking of modern DNA, he asserts, "The only known cause for the origin of information is intelligence."
  
  I think we all knew that already. The purpose of the video was to show how "laws" in of themselves do not account for information like we see in DNA.
  
  Quote, "In general, the ID argument goes like this:"
  
  Straw man arguments don't lend you credibility. And ID argument has various ways of taking form. But at the heart is the issue of the uncaused cause. Are you familiar with it? If so, please give us your understanding.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 26th, 2011

• Mr Natural AOTQ,
  
  Have you ever considered exactly how much packed INSTRUCTIONS are in DNA? Does this not point to intelligence behind it? Written instructions require a writer? Every writer has an author. You are entitled to your opinion but this is something to spend more time thinking over.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on May 26th, 2011

• ''Does this not point to intelligence behind it?''
  
  No, not in this case. To paraphrase your argument:
  
  1. DNA is very complex.
  
  2. I believe in God and the teachings of the Bible.
  
  3. I honestly don't know how biological evolution works, but I've heard that it doesn't require a creator or an "intelligent designer."
  
  4. I can't think of any other source for DNA.
  
  5. Therefore, it follows that only an intelligent designer could have created DNA.
  
  Biological Evolution

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on May 26th, 2011

• Mr_Natural
  
  OK so you tossed a straw man at me and now on Nick...
  
  That really doesn't help you out if you wanted to make a point.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 26th, 2011

• No laws do not account for information, they bring about the circumstance for complex life, and therefore information, to evolve.
  The physical laws are the horse, life is the cart, if physics did not allow for the propagation of life, then life would not exist, attributing physical laws to an intelligence is, at best, a blind guess, ID is backed up by no other discipline, whereas scientific theories dealing with the big bang and evolutionary science are backed up by every other discipline.
  As someone once said "Religion is 100% faith and no facts, science is 100% facts and no faith", you can believe whatever you like, but until you can provide evidence to corroborate those beliefs, you cannot quote them as fact.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 27th, 2011

• Quote, "No laws do not account for information, they bring about the circumstance for complex life, and therefore information, to evolve."
  
  That sentence doesn't make sense, its not logically coherent. You are saying that the "laws" don't account for information but they provide the circumstances for complex life. OK sure I'll agree with that but its your conclusion that is off, way off. You say, "and therefore information to evolve." Thats like saying a fully stocked and ready kitchen will therefore produce a cake because it has the correct circumstances.
  
  Quote, "The physical laws are the horse, life is the cart, if physics did not allow for the propagation of life, then life would not exist,"
  
  You are giving undue credit to "laws" and ignoring the specific sequence found in our DNA for life. The issue is the sequence, the arrangement, the pattern--design. If you admit laws don't account for information then you can't give credit to the laws for doing any arrangements to our DNA.
  
  Quote, "attributing physical laws to an intelligence is, at best, a blind guess, ID is backed up by no other discipline,"
  
  Blind guess? Its what we can infer from our understanding of the limits of the laws of physics. ID is backed up by logic, by what we can deduce from the evidence.
  
  Quote, "whereas scientific theories dealing with the big bang and evolutionary science are backed up by every other discipline."
  
  No. You are lumping two separate theories in order to give the one in dispute some weight. BB is firmly established by many things. Evolution is not. This is at heart.
  
  Quote, "As someone once said "Religion is 100% faith and no facts, science is 100% facts and no faith","
  
  Depending on the individual, that may be the case. BTW that goes for atheist who haven't any (or so they say) religious beliefs. There are many atheist who assert strongly what they don't know, only because everyone else believe it.
  
  Quote, "you can believe whatever you like, but until you can provide evidence to corroborate those beliefs, you cannot quote them as fact."
  
  Right back at ya...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 30th, 2011

• A fully stocked kitchen will not produce a cake by itself, but since a cake does not self replicate, your example is flawed.
  I am not giving physical laws credit for anything, they govern that which is possible, they do not have a conscious effect on anything, physics is as physics does.
  ID is not backed up by physics or logic, it's backed up by religious nonsense and nothing more. Evolution is the worst possible target for a creationist to challenge, since only mathematics is more definitely confirmed, if you had taken the time to study evolutionary theory you'd know that.
  Thus far you have cast aspersions upon scientific theories and precepts, but still have provided not one speck of evidence to corroborate your nonsensical belief in an invisible and utterly indetetectable deity, therefore, you cannot honestly claim that he exists.
  I on the other hand can dig fossils out of the ground, count sedimentary layers in rock strata and rings in trees, observe data relating to natural selection and its effects upon living organisms, allowing me not only to disprove ID for myself, but to develop hypotheses about creatures I've never encountered and the forces that shaped their evolution.
  You have nothing but a book written by savages who thought flicking doves blood about would cure leprosy.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 30th, 2011

• PocketNut,
  
  I live in Florence Italy much of the year. Many come to visit the famous statue of David. If you were on an archeological dig and found the David would you attribute intelligent design, chance or natural selection that produced it? Would my reasoning be flawed to give credit to a talent behind this masterpiece? Or the wind, forces of nature, rain, and sands of time?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on May 30th, 2011

• ''statue of David''
  
  David is not an organism.
  David does not self-replicate.
  No matter how long you stare at the statue of David, you will not see it live, die, reproduce, or evolve.
  
  If you ever get a chance to take even one introductory course in biology or zoology, you will learn to distinguish between inorganic, non-living statues made of stone and organisms that reproduce.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on May 30th, 2011

• Yet another ridiculous premise based upon the self defeating notion that all things are made not formed.
  Statues do not reproduce independently of an intelligence, therefore, yet again, the analogy is a poor one at best.
  Volcanoes and tornados form independently, according to understood laws of physics, and without the interference of a conscious entity, we can describe what causes them, even if we do not have all the answers. The people who wrote the bible probably thought it was down to demons, they certainly thought that was what caused mental illness, and thanks to science, we have proven them wrong time and again, not only that, but we have developed medication capable of helping the mentally ill, as opposed to drilling holes in their heads to 'release the evil spirits'.
  Creationism and ID are based on poor logic and backed up by nothing but wishful thinking.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 30th, 2011

• PocketNut
  
  Quote, "A fully stocked kitchen will not produce a cake by itself, but since a cake does not self replicate, your example is flawed."
  
  The example was to show that "right conditions" in of themselves, do not do anything other than provide "right conditions". You made that claim without justification.
  
  Quote, "I am not giving physical laws credit for anything, they govern that which is possible, they do not have a conscious effect on anything, physics is as physics does."
  
  Talk about poor logic. Because something "can" happen, you assert it did. Furthermore, you we don't know what is possible other than our assumptions, since we have never seen anything remotely plausible that suggest anything you are asserting.
  
  Quote, "ID is not backed up by physics or logic, it's backed up by religious nonsense and nothing more."
  
  Other than sharing your opinion, would you like to offer something more in the way of evidence?
  
  Quote, "Evolution is the worst possible target for a creationist to challenge, since only mathematics is more definitely confirmed, if you had taken the time to study evolutionary theory you'd know that."
  
  Define "evolution" before you make that claim. We may even agree that it occurs, depending on how you define it. It varies from atheist to atheist very much at times.
  
  Quote, "Thus far you have cast aspersions upon scientific theories and precepts, but still have provided not one speck of evidence to corroborate your nonsensical belief in an invisible and utterly indetetectable deity, therefore, you cannot honestly claim that he exists.
  
  I thought you would understand that evolution must stand on its own and that proving or disproving one does not therefore prove or disprove the other... Take that into consideration.
  
  Quote, "I on the other hand can dig fossils out of the ground, count sedimentary layers in rock strata and rings in trees, observe data relating to natural selection and its effects upon living organisms, allowing me not only to disprove ID for myself, but to develop hypotheses about creatures I've never encountered and the forces that shaped their evolution."
  
  How does that enable you to disprove ID? It seems you don't understand what ID is or you are just making a straw man that suits you. ID is, for the religious, the uncaused cause. Bones and chemicals don't make that go away.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 30th, 2011

• Mr Natural
  
  Quote, "If you ever get a chance to take even one introductory course in biology or zoology, you will learn to distinguish between inorganic, non-living statues made of stone and organisms that reproduce."
  
  And guess what else you will learn Mr. Natural? You'll also learn about inanimate chemicals that are not life and that "organic chemicals" doesn't mean much other than they are composed of carbon based atoms (or something like that)... Thats it.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 30th, 2011

• Pocket Nut
  
  Please provide us some information that supports your assertions that 1)life from inanimate chemicals is even possible and 2)that this was the result of undirected natural laws operating in "right conditions" and 3)make sure it does not require a chemist in a lab doing things that were unlikely.
  
  If you can't do that, then you are blowing smoke and making noise and offering nothing more than your opinion. BTW we thank you for your opinion, but, evidence is always a step in the right direction and makes our opinions just a bit more weighty.
  
  Thanks.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 30th, 2011

• If on the other hand you want to discuss evolution, please, provide us with evidence/data that shows modern evolutionary theory is how organisms evolved that 1)does rest on circular arguments (evolution happened and this is how...) and 2)are in line with likely outcomes according to what we know about how organisms change and 3)does not require large amounts of faith (after all, thats for us silly God goobers.)

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 30th, 2011

• Amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, have formed all over the place, it is almost inevitable that a planet with liquid water and a decent atmosphere will produce life.
  Evolution does not stand on its own, primarily because it affects and is corroborated by so many other branches of science.
  A definition of evolution as I see it would be along the lines of: Differentiation of species morphology as a result of the effects of natural selection.
  I know precisely what ID is, it's a blatant, and foolish, attempt by creationists to give their religious day dreams some scientific credibility, as such, it is what one might refer to as a 'massive fail'.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 30th, 2011

• If you want to discuss physics and logic especially cause and effect, you will have to attempt an argument that 1)shows an effect can be its own cause or 2)something always existed but it was not intelligent or 3)argue that something comes from nothing and 4)make sure it is logically coherent.
  
  Pick one or all three challenges and kindly leave out irrelevant religious comments out. Lets stay logical here, disproving Santa Claus is not an issue here.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 30th, 2011

• Quote, "Amino acids, the basic building blocks of life, have formed all over the place, it is almost inevitable that a planet with liquid water and a decent atmosphere will produce life."
  
  Building blocks are not in dispute here. Are you paying attention? We are talking about information being arranged by intelligence or not... You are claiming it is not intelligent so we are waiting for your argument/information.
  
  Qutoe, "Evolution does not stand on its own, primarily because it affects and is corroborated by so many other branches of science."
  
  I meant that it must stand on its own not the default theory.
  
  Quote, "A definition of evolution as I see it would be along the lines of: Differentiation of species morphology as a result of the effects of natural selection."
  
  Like I said, definitions vary greatly... This definition is useless... Dogs have morphological differences. What you are seeing (not including selective breeding) is epigenetic variation... This is not evolution. Don't believe me? "HOW" does evolution work and what is it that provides the information that changes... Hint: It can't be something that already exists or else you have variation within a kind. You need to address this or else you are merely agreeing with ID, in that, things change only within a certain kind.
  
  Quote, "I know precisely what ID is, it's a blatant, and foolish, attempt by creationists to give their religious day dreams some scientific credibility, as such, it is what one might refer to as a 'massive fail'."
  
  Leave religion out. Lets stay fallacy free here. Can you do this?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 30th, 2011

• ttyl :D
  
  
  
  
  p.s. You need some sort of data to support your assertions.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 30th, 2011

• @no_one
  
  ''inanimate chemicals''
  
  All chemicals are "ínaminate," unless you've seen some walking around, or pouring themselves into other bottles to commingle with their friends LOL. There is no class of chemicals called "animated chemicals." If you get a chance, take an introductory class in high school chemistry. (You won't find the chemistry information you need in your bible.)
  
  Equally puerile, you have asked PocketNut to "define evolution," and to provide evidence and data to support it. I suspect that you are feigning ignorance, and that you know very well that the evidence you claim to seek is available everywhere--except in the creationist fringe of the Bible-thumping community.
  
  You have Google. You can find all the evidence you need online. Get a college student to help you. For that matter, a high school student who has completed a course in biology or zoology can explain it to you.
  
  You know you're stuck in a scientific dead end, and the best you can do is to start all over at the beginning and recycle the same tired questions and accusations. It's apparent that you and Nick are just stalling. Are you hoping for a sign from God? LOL
  
  Your request for yet another definition of evolution indicates that you have not made even a perfunctory effort to learn what biological evolution is, how it works, and why the scientific community has universally come to accept it over the last 150 years.
  
  Instead of hitting the books and learning basic biology, you continue to rely on Creationist-Approved material that supports and sustains your antediluvian beliefs. That's why you keep regurgitating the same tired nonsense.
  
  You can get over your mental block if you try, but you need to make the effort and educate yourself. I suspect you're not as dumb as you pretend. Correct me if I'm wrong. lol

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on May 30th, 2011

• @no_one
  
  "How does that enable you to disprove ID?"
  
  No one needs to "disprove" ID. You are the one claiming "intelligent design." Therefore, you are the one who needs to support your claim.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on May 30th, 2011

• Hi Mr. Natural AOTQ,
  
  My point was if the lifeless David statue requires a maker how much more so the real David who was living, breathing, thinking much more complex being. A scientist cannot even make an oyster! If they did it would require an intelligent being behind it!
  
  How thankful we should be for our eyes—more intricate than the finest camera—that can take in the colorful world around us! We have our ears—finer than any man-made sound system—to help us enjoy conversation, music, and the melodious song of the birds.
  
  We have a built-in speaking mechanism, including the versatile tongue. The tongue’s taste buds, combined with our sense of smell, provide also for delight in savoring an endless variety of foods. And how we appreciate the touch of a loving hand! Surely we can thank our Creator, as did the real David who said: “I shall laud you because in a fear-inspiring way I am wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, as my soul is very well aware.” (Psalm 139:14)
  
  How do you explain the millions of connections between the eyes and brain? There is no way that just happened by chance. Believe what you will but that is wishful thinking to not attribute it to great design.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on May 30th, 2011

• Mr. Natural
  
  Quote, "All chemicals are "ínaminate," unless you've seen some walking around, or pouring themselves into other bottles to commingle with their friends LOL. There is no class of chemicals called "animated chemicals." If you get a chance, take an introductory class in high school chemistry. (You won't find the chemistry information you need in your bible.)"
  
  We all knew that. I wonder why you felt the need to point it out? I mean, if you want to engage us in a conversation, why don't you just do that when we are speaking to you? Instead (and I've noticed this pattern from you in previous conversations) you hang out on the sidelines until you can come in with an opinion or state the obvious in a effort to ridicule but you have not much else to offer. Would you like to engage me one on one? Lets cut this silliness out already.
  
  Quote, "Equally puerile, you have asked PocketNut to "define evolution," and to provide evidence and data to support it. I suspect that you are feigning ignorance,"
  
  If you would have read what I wrote, I asked because most theist and atheist don't know how to define evolution and once you ask them they have very different definitions. So, to avoid a straw man I rather ask the person instead of attacking a straw man. You should try that sometime, you seem to excel in the use of that fallacy.
  
  Quote, "You have Google. You can find all the evidence you need online. Get a college student to help you."
  
  Well, I'm not discussing this with them right now, am I? No... Pay attention please.
  
  Quote, "You know you're stuck in a scientific dead end, and the best you can do is to start all over at the beginning and recycle the same tired questions and accusations. It's apparent that you and Nick are just stalling."
  
  I offered three subjects to discuss and you are more than welcome to pick one and get on with it. You are the one only coming in when convenient and hanging out on the sidelines. If you are ready I am willing.
  
  Quote, "Your request for yet another definition of evolution indicates that you have not made even a perfunctory effort to learn what biological evolution is, how it works,"
  
  My request is so that I understand where he or you are coming from. I know full well what evolution is, or at least what it was until evidence came out and trashed this idea last year and the one previous. I am willing to bet you and Pocket Nuts are not aware and have been defending the old way of thinking. I am waiting on a more solid definition from either of you. I have already written about this in various threads, so, no I am not stalling. I am waiting for a definition that even remotely resembles what evolutionary theory is so I can present my evidence. If I do not I can be accused of attacking a straw man. Morphological differences are not any sort of definition when it comes to this subject.
  
  Quote, "Instead of hitting the books and learning basic biology, you continue to rely on Creationist-Approved material that supports and sustains your antediluvian beliefs. That's why you keep regurgitating the same tired nonsense."
  
  Why don't you change your name to Mr. Fallacy guy or just Mr. Straw man? I think it better suits your methods.
  
  Quote, "You can get over your mental block if you try, but you need to make the effort and educate yourself. I suspect you're not as dumb as you pretend. Correct me if I'm wrong. lol"
  
  Now, why would you suspect I am not that dumb? Hmmm... Haven't I demonstrated all I can do is say "Satan put the bones there to test our faith" or "Kent Hovind rocks!"... LOL.
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 30th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Quote, "No one needs to "disprove" ID. You are the one claiming "intelligent design." Therefore, you are the one who needs to support your claim."
  
  No one asked you or Pocket Nuts to disprove ID. I said disproving one does not prove the other and vice versa. Did I miss something? I suppose its possible so can you please quote me in context so that we may see when I asked Pocket Nuts to disprove ID? Oh and BTW, if one says something to the effect as "life arose via natural laws" or something like this, guess what? Its a claim. So, even if we both agreed God didn't exist, the onus is on whoever makes the claim no matter what the claim is.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 30th, 2011

• Mr. Natural pick one.
  
  A. If you want to discuss physics and logic especially cause and effect and how it supports ID or not, you will have to attempt an argument that 1)shows an effect can be its own cause or 2)something always existed but it was not intelligent or 3)argue that something comes from nothing and 4)make sure it is logically coherent.
  
  B. If on the other hand you want to discuss evolution, first define it and, please, provide us with evidence/data that shows modern evolutionary theory is how organisms evolved that 1)does rest on circular arguments (evolution happened and this is how...) and 2)are in line with likely outcomes according to what we know about how organisms change and 3)does not require large amounts of faith (after all, thats for us silly God goobers.)
  
  C. If you'd like to discuss abiogenesis please share with us information that 1)life from inanimate chemicals is even possible and 2)that this was the result of undirected natural laws operating in "right conditions" and 3)make sure it does not require a chemist in a lab doing things that were unlikely in an unlikely environment.
  
  If you can't do that, then you are blowing smoke and making noise and offering nothing more than your opinion. BTW we thank you for your opinion, but, evidence is always a step in the right direction and makes our opinions just a bit more weighty.
  
  Pick one or all three challenges and kindly leave out irrelevant religious comments out and any other fallacies. Lets stay logical here, disproving Straw men is not an issue here.
  
  Can you do this or were you just wanting to share with us baseless opinions?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 30th, 2011

• The baseless opinions are all yours, since you have supplied absolutely no evidence, and tied yourselves in knots trying to squirm out of doing so, because, as we are all well aware, there is none, which is why scientists go with evolutionary theory as opposed to the bible. That should be a massive hint for you right there, not to mention a logically coherent one.
  Nick Baker has recycleded the old 'irreducible complexity' as so many creationists have done in the past. This argument is not only one of the oldest arguments, but has been debunked for as long as it's 150 year history, along with ploystrate fossils 'proving' the great flood of Noah, an event with literally no evidence to substantiate it.
  Go away, read up on basic biology, come back when you have something that is new to share with the group not just more regurgitated Hovind/Comfort/Crone nonsense.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 31st, 2011

• Quote, "The baseless opinions are all yours, since you have supplied absolutely no evidence,"
  
  I am waiting on you to pick a topic. Pick one.
  
  Quote, "and tied yourselves in knots trying to squirm out of doing so,"
  
  Pick a topic and you'll see exactly what I am talking about. This issue can be confusing with just one topic. Mixing abiogenesis with the possibility or not of an uncaused cause and evolution isn't going to make it any easier. And please, don't assume I don't have evidence. Look here: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/9229786 beginning on Sept 1st 2010. From then on plenty of evidence was supplied and evidence given to me was not ignored.
  
  Quote, "because, as we are all well aware, there is none, which is why scientists go with evolutionary theory as opposed to the bible. That should be a massive hint for you right there, not to mention a logically coherent one."
  
  Fallacies ad populum and ad argumentum. Sorry, this doesn't cut it.
  
  Quote, "Go away, read up on basic biology, come back when you have something that is new to share with the group not just more regurgitated Hovind/Comfort/Crone nonsense."
  
  I hope you know the "Kent Hovind rocks" was a joke.
  
  Here is an idea, why don't you pick up a book on logic and focus on two fallacies at least. 1. Straw man and 2. the Red Herring. You seem to do this over and over. I think I know why but I'll withhold judgement until more evidence comes out--from your actions.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 31st, 2011

• Make the bad man "go away." Read up on "basic biology?" Is that what you are telling NOS? C'mon PocketNut? He was a long time Athiest and he knows both sides of the argument extremely well.
  
  Instead of trying to belittle and berate why not just carry a calm conversation? I sense you are struggling and a little apprehensive to do so. You are also greatly mistaken by insinuating that all Scientists "go with evolution."
  
  Thanks to molecular biology many are now seeing things that Darwin never did. This is causing many Scientists to reevaluate their position. Please peacefully present your documentation against ID or IC. Could it be you are simply swallowing what others imagine?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on May 31st, 2011

• Ok, let's start by pointing out that abiogenesis and evolution are *not* the same thing. A long time atheist would not necessarily know this, and clearly neither you nor NOS appear to have grasped even this basic concept.
  I am not in the least bit apprehensive of being proven wrong, since you would have to produce evidence in favour of ID, which after five years of research into this delusory hypothesis, I have been unable to locate. I am however tired of constantly repeating the same argument ad nauseum.
  Yes, we can now see things that Darwin never could have, and these things are changing the way we think about evolution, but not in favour of biblically inspired superstitions such as ID, in fact ID has never been on shakier ground amongst those who bother to research the basics.
  So as I've already said, bring some new information to the discussion, produce something that actually backs up ID, put up or shut up.
  Irreducible complexity is a dead duck, as is the watch gambit, namely insisting that a watch would not be able to evolve on its own, and then talking as if *I'm* using straw men and red herring arguments, naturally, I'm getting a little bored with your assertions of superior knowledge without you actually presenting anything that has not been disproven on many, many occaisions.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on May 31st, 2011

• Pocketnut, can you support your statement, "ID has never been on shakier ground amongst those who bother to research the basics"?
  
  Can you also prove that Irreducible complexity has been successfully debunked?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on May 31st, 2011

• PocketNut
  
  Quote, "Ok, let's start by pointing out that abiogenesis and evolution are *not* the same thing. A long time atheist would not necessarily know this, and clearly neither you nor NOS appear to have grasped even this basic concept."
  
  Um... PocketNut... Before you try and ridicule someone or try and set them straight, you should really work on your reading comprehension. I mentioned abiogensis as a separate topic, 1 of 3. In fact, I mentioned it at least twice, once to you once to Mr. Natural. Scroll up to May 30th 2011 and see its the first option followed by evolution and then scroll down to the comment for Mr. Natural that says "Mr. Natural pick one." where there is A, B, and C.
  
  Also here is a link where I wrote a tiny bit on it: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/7933569
  
  Quote, "I am not in the least bit apprehensive of being proven wrong, since you would have to produce evidence in favour of ID, which after five years of research into this delusory hypothesis, I have been unable to locate"
  
  Well, "proof" is only for mathematics and deductive logic. Other than that, we both have to settle for what evidence suggests. I take it you knew that already...
  
  Quote, "I am however tired of constantly repeating the same argument ad nauseum."
  
  And we are tired of hearing you it. So, refute logically/relevantly.
  
  Quote, "Yes, we can now see things that Darwin never could have, and these things are changing the way we think about evolution, but not in favour of biblically inspired superstitions such as ID, in fact ID has never been on shakier ground amongst those who bother to research the basics."
  
  Actually, all the ideas that are supposed to make ID go away are crumbling as we speak. But, one step at a time.
  
  Quote, "So as I've already said, bring some new information to the discussion, produce something that actually backs up ID, put up or shut up."
  
  Sounds like a plan and right back at ya BTW. :D
  
  One of the things that really supports ID is DNA. But not just the complexity of DNA, but, also its pattern. DNA follows a Fibonacci sequence (another sequence found in nature is the Lucas sequence).
  
  "In 1990. Jean-Clode Perez, the scientific employee of IBM, has made rather unexpected discovery in the field of genetic code. He has discovered the mathematical law controlling by self-organizing of the basis T, C, A, G inside of DNA. He has found out, that the consecutive sets of DNA nucleotides are organized in frames of the distant order called as "RESONANCES". Here "Resonance" represents the special proportion ensuring division of DNA parts pursuant to the Fibonacci numbers (1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, ...). As already repeatedly was emphasized in our Museum, it is the same proportion, which controls by morphology of natural organisms such, as a pinecone, cactus, pineapple, etc."
  http://www.goldenmuseum.com/1611GenCode_engl.html
  
  It is interesting that when DNA deviates from this standard, a mutation occurs or when a mutation occurs a deviation occurs, same difference I suppose.
  
  "There are exceptions to this list. Most fall into two categories; a doubling of the number of petals, and/or a version of the Fibonacci Series called the Lucas Series (2, 1, 3, 4, 7, 11, 18, 29, 47, 76, etc.). Mutations and variations from species to species also account for exceptions but when the number of petals are averaged, the number will usually be a Fibonacci or Lucas Number."
  http://library.thinkquest.org/27890/altver/applications4.html
  
  This has been called a mathematical law but there is no physical law to account for this. This strongly supports ID. Given the fact that no physical law can account for this, this also puts a hole through the hypothesis known as abiogenesis. Two birds with one stone, showing how it not only supports ID but hurts abiogenesis.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on May 31st, 2011

• So now you claim that mathematics backs up ID, but once again fail to present a reason why, whereas I can point to a change in morphology as an example of a stage in evolution, you would presumably refer to it as micro-evolution, blithely ignoring the fact that macro-evolution is a series of micro-evolutions.
  Yes, I had noticed that you had introduced abiogenesis as a separate topic, presumably because you are hoping to muddy the waters of this answer regarding the existence of your god, amongst the many thousands worshipped throughout history, as the only god, just as you have introduced the subject of ID vs evolution.
  Mathematics is not proof of a deity any more than the bible is.
  I can point to reduced elephant tusk length and nylon eating bacteria, but nothing will break your brainwashing, on the other hand, were you actually able to produce actual, irrefutable and verifiable evidence, as opposed to quote mining science journals and dressing them up as evidence for your god, I would have to change my point of view to reflect reality.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 1st, 2011

• @Nick
  ''How do you explain the millions of connections between the eyes and brain? There is no way that just happened by chance.''
  
  1. I can't explain it. There are lots of things I can't explain. Does that prove that God exists? lol
  
  2. You're right; it didn't just happen by chance. It happened over 1000s of generations, through a process we call biological evolution.
  
  The link is not a proof, just a simplified explanation of biological evolution and natural selection. You should have no trouble understanding it. NOS will have trouble, b/c he wants to drag me into a debate over his personal agenda.
  
  @NOS
  You keep demanding my personal "definition of evolution." It has been well-defined in the literature. I can't do any better. Just follow the links I've posted, or (as I keep suggesting), google the information you require. It's not mysterious, arcane, or elusive. It's available for everyone.
  
  ''Mr Natural, pick one''
  
  Sorry, I'm not going to play your game and allow you to call the shots. You enjoy debating concepts, abstractions, and logic, none of which have anything to do with making a case for intelligent design. You keep babbling about logical errors, which you don't fully understand, as evidenced by your misuse of the "straw man," "red herring," and other well-known errors. You keep baiting me to enter your preferred territory, where you will attempt to make your case by tossing concepts and abstractions about, and baffling us with bullshit. I can't believe you actually cite the Fibonacci series, as if that somehow helps you make a case for god and ID. Pathetic!
  
  I'll keep steering you toward genuine sources that discuss Evolutionary Biology, where you can learn if you so desire. So far, you haven't given the slightest indication that you're interested in learning.I can't help you there.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 1st, 2011

• PocketNut
  
  Quote, "So now you claim that mathematics backs up ID, but once again fail to present a reason why,"
  
  OK you really need to start paying attention. Scroll up to my last comment from yesterday and look at the last paragraph. I didn't just state mathematics suggest ID, a reason was also give. That reason is a mathematical law is present in DNA but no physical law accounts for it. This supports ID over the abiogenesis hypothesis.
  
  Quote, "whereas I can point to a change in morphology as an example of a stage in evolution, you would presumably refer to it as micro-evolution, blithely ignoring the fact that macro-evolution is a series of micro-evolutions."
  
  Um... PocketNut... Do you understand what "relevant" means? You just made a fuss about people not understanding the difference between abiogenesis and evolution and now you mix the two when you picked abiogenesis as the topic. If you want to change the subject and talk about evolution I am more than willing but try and stay relevant. You can't just ignore what I've just said. Refute or concede. Why do you bring in morphology to counter the argument against abiogenesis?
  
  Quote, "Yes, I had noticed that you had introduced abiogenesis as a separate topic, presumably because you are hoping to muddy the waters of this answer regarding the existence of your god, amongst the many thousands worshipped throughout history, as the only god, just as you have introduced the subject of ID vs evolution."
  
  OK... So then why did you say that I didn't know the difference when you just admitted I made a difference in the options I gave for topic?
  
  Quote, "Mathematics is not proof of a deity any more than the bible is"
  
  Did you not read when I said that neither of us has "proofs" and we have to settle for what evidence suggests? This is why each side introduces evidences that supports or refutes the other guy or at least shows that their argument is the more likely outcome stemming from the evidence. You point is moot as this was already covered... BTW, in case you missed it, its not that mathematics proves God, its mathematical laws being found in DNA without a physical law to account for it. This therefore, suggests design.
  
  Quote, "I can point to reduced elephant tusk length and nylon eating bacteria, but nothing will break your brainwashing,"
  
  Now, why oh why, would you do that if we are talking about abiogenesis? Are you trying to wiggle out of actually addressing the points made thus far? We've just begun, at least try.
  
  Quote, "on the other hand, were you actually able to produce actual, irrefutable and verifiable evidence, as opposed to quote mining science journals and dressing them up as evidence for your god, I would have to change my point of view to reflect reality."
  
  I just gave you sources it isn't merely quote mining. The quotes, whether you like it or not, are based on evidence/findings in DNA. How is that not a verifiable piece of evidence? I'd love to hear your reason on this.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 1st, 2011

• Mr. Natural
  
  Quote, "2. You're right; it didn't just happen by chance. It happened over 1000s of generations, through a process we call biological evolution."
  
  How does the biological process work? (shhh... here is where he tells me to go read a book, the standard "I have no idea" or "I know I can't sustain the burden of proof for my belif" canned answers)
  
  Quote, "NOS will have trouble, b/c he wants to drag me into a debate over his personal agenda."
  
  I want you to put your money where your mouth is. Or as PocketNut said, "put up or shut up". :D
  
  Quote, "You keep demanding my personal "definition of evolution." It has been well-defined in the literature. I can't do any better. Just follow the links I've posted, or (as I keep suggesting), google the information you require. It's not mysterious, arcane, or elusive. It's available for everyone. "
  
  Thats fine. So paste it. I know what it is and what it has to be in order for it to qualify as evolution. But most people don't know and I don't know if you know or if you have any personal adjustments to the theory you'd like to include. So I ask you for your understanding of it so I know how to proceed. Even within the scientific community various definitions are given.
  
  "According to Gould "substantial changes, introduced during the last half of the 20th century, have built a structure so expanded beyond the original Darwinian core, and so enlarged by new principles of macroevolutionary explanation, that the full exposition, while remaining within the domain of Darwinian logic, must be construed as basically different from the canonical theory of natural selection, rather than simply extended."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Evolutionary_Theory
  
  So it isn't unfair nor unnecessary to ask you to define evolution and the mechanisms involved in the process. By understanding this we can apply logic and see if the belief is able to be sustained by the evidence and how big a bridge of faith or leap of faith one needs in order to hold onto the idea.
  
  Quote, "Sorry, I'm not going to play your game and allow you to call the shots."
  
  Reasonable discussion is what I've offered. Please, tell me, what do you find unreasonable?
  
  Quote, "You enjoy debating concepts, abstractions, and logic, none of which have anything to do with making a case for intelligent design."
  
  So toss out concepts and logic? I mean, are you listening to what you are saying? seriously... How else are we to accept an idea if it is not at least plausible and inferred from the evidence? Just believe....? I'd love to hear an answer to this.
  
  Quote, "You keep babbling about logical errors, which you don't fully understand, as evidenced by your misuse of the "straw man," "red herring," and other well-known errors"
  
  Straw man is when the other person creates or assumes (unintentional straw man)a weaker argument and then proceeds to attack it. You have done this to Nick and I. Unless you really misunderstood what we have state. If that is the case I stand corrected. But the red herring is obvious. You guys keep changing subjects and talking about irrelevant things.
  
  Quote, "I can't believe you actually cite the Fibonacci series, as if that somehow helps you make a case for god and ID. Pathetic!"
  
  Do you suppose you can provide a line of reason to support your assertions, at least a little? Thanks.
  
  Quote, "I'll keep steering you toward genuine sources that discuss Evolutionary Biology, where you can learn if you so desire."
  
  Its not that I don't understand the process. Its that there is no plausible evidence for any of it. Not scientifically, not logically, not anything. In fact, its been all wrong for the past few decades and only now is this being quietly admitted.
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 1st, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Quote, "So far, you haven't given the slightest indication that you're interested in learning.I can't help you there."
  
  So far, you haven't given the slightest indication that you're interested in rational discussion. Other than, "argument by link" and vague assertions you haven't contributed much. I can't help you there.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 1st, 2011

• Fibonacci sequences and golden ratios occur in nature because they are highly efficient organizational systems that once stumbled upon randomly would be propagated due to the advantage they provide. Their mere presence can not be ruled out as a natural phenomenon and can not be definitively attributed to intelligent intervention.
  This video should clear up some misconceptions about intelligent design.
  
  

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 1st, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "Fibonacci sequences and golden ratios occur in nature because they are highly efficient organizational systems"
  
  It does not follow that because they are efficient therefore they "will" occur.
  
  Quote, "that once stumbled upon randomly would be propagated due to the advantage they provide."
  
  This "begs the question" that this was a random process and was stumbled upon. This cannot be harmonized unless you first show this is a likely event. The complexity and information storing capabilities of DNA show this was not a random event but is more in line with design.
  
  Quote, "Their mere presence can not be ruled out as a natural phenomenon"
  
  Their mere presence, no. But it is highly suggested that this was ID given that physical laws don't account for it.
  
  Quote, "and can not be definitively attributed to intelligent intervention."
  
  Are you saying it if definitely is attributed to random process? If, now the onus is on you. Please share with us the support for this being a random process.
  
  Quote, "This video should clear up some misconceptions about intelligent design."
  
  They are on irreducible complexity. I have some issues with it so I don't use it in my arguments. I do think there is some merit to Behe's ideas but I don't use him much.
  
  Address the points please. Show how your negations of Fibonacci and ID are more plausible than the inferences.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 1st, 2011

• “Are you saying it if definitely is attributed to random process? If, now the onus is on you. Please share with us the support for this being a random process.”
  
  No, I am not making the claim that the only explanation is a random process. That would be claiming knowledge no one possesses. But it is equally fallacious to claim to know for certain that they could only be present due to intelligent intervention. There is also no concrete evidence to support that claim. All we know is that the random process “could” have led to Fibonacci sequences/golden ratios.
  
  “They are on irreducible complexity. I have some issues with it so I don't use it in my arguments. I do think there is some merit to Behe's ideas but I don't use him much.”
  
  They cover much more than irreducible complexity and strike at the whole intelligent design argument from a well thought out logical position. They also give a solid simply stated understandable explanation for evolution. Although you’ve been presented with dozens of explanations already its possible one more might pierce the fog.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 1st, 2011

• Quote, "No, I am not making the claim that the only explanation is a random process. That would be claiming knowledge no one possesses."
  
  Sorry but that is not an explanation of any sort. Its an opinion that is unsupported.
  
  Quote, "But it is equally fallacious to claim to know for certain that they could only be present due to intelligent intervention."
  
  Did you notice I said more than once, "evidence suggests" and things along those lines? Read a bit back I've made this point very clear.
  
  Quote, "All we know is that the random process “could” have led to Fibonacci sequences/golden ratios."
  
  You can't just say "could" without knowing it acutally could.
  
  " The principle of sufficient reason states that anything that happens does so for a reason: no state of affairs can obtain, and no statement can be true unless there is sufficient reason why it should not be otherwise."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_sufficient_reason
  
  Quote, "They cover much more than irreducible complexity and strike at the whole intelligent design argument from a well thought out logical position."
  
  They go on and on about Behe. They don't address anything relevant about mutations, the mechanism of evolution, abiogenesis or anything remotely relevant on this thread.
  
  Quote, "They also give a solid simply stated understandable explanation for evolution."
  
  No, it begs the question. We are not talking about elementary definitions and assertions here. We are discussing the mechanisms that validate or invalidate the theories as a whole. Debunking Behe is only debunking Behe. I am not using Behe nor have I used it in any of my arguments here on AB that I can remember in my three years here... I think there is some merit to his ideas but after reading his books I decided to move away from his augments.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 1st, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Pick a topic and lets reason. Giving me videos to watch that are irrelevant is not impressive. In addition, as usual, those videos, the point they are trying to make about fallacies and quote mining, go both ways. So, if thats what you meant by covering more than Behe's irreducible complexity, well join the club. I've been saying that fallacies need to be left outside of rational debates. You will join, right?
  
  Pick a topic. Define the mechanism by which you feel it is likely/plausible and lets stay relevant.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 1st, 2011

• “You can't just say "could" without knowing it acutally could”
  
  I wouldn’t have said “could” if it couldn’t have. There is nothing preventing a beneficial trait (the organizational optimization of Fibonacci utilization) from occurring randomly and being propagated via direct inheritance.
  
  “Did you notice I said more than once, "evidence suggests" and things along those lines?”
  
  The “evidence” you’re referring to? All I have to say about that is Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School. http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm Like the video points out It was admitted in court that there are NO peer reviewed articles in ANY scientific journals that support intelligent design. I don’t know how much further the debate can proceed given that’s the case.
  
  “We are discussing the mechanisms that validate or invalidate the theories as a whole”
  
  Theses two videos explain exactly what you’re asking for.
  
  
  
  

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 1st, 2011

• @NOS
  
  Gillaspy:
  ''Fibonacci sequences and golden ratios occur in nature because they are highly efficient organizational systems that once stumbled upon randomly would be propagated due to the advantage they provide. Their mere presence can not be ruled out as a natural phenomenon and can not be definitively attributed to intelligent intervention.''
  
  NOS:
  ''Quote, "that once stumbled upon randomly would be propagated due to the advantage they provide."
  
  ''This 'begs the question' that this was a random process and was stumbled upon. This cannot be harmonized unless you first show this is a likely event.''
  
  Given enough time, every possible event becomes a "likely" event. A specific combination of a finite number of alleles might be "unlikely" (read: low probability) to occur randomly in a year, or 100 years, or even 100,000 years. But if the given combination is possible, then time and probability insure that it will eventually occur.
  
  Remember, we are talking about tens of thousands of generations. Eventually, anything that CAN happen WILL happen.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 1st, 2011

• So if we wish to be able to jump over the Grand canyon this CAN eventually happen?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 1st, 2011

• Be serious, Nick. Is jumping over the Grand Canyon something that CAN happen?
  

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 1st, 2011

• "Given enough time, every possible event becomes a "likely" event."
  
  I couldnt agree more. Thats why i can with full confidence believe that is exactly what happened (Fibonacci sequences and golden ratios occur in nature).

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 1st, 2011

• Do you guys believe there is a "possibility" that aliens are out there or put us here?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 1st, 2011

• One, I don't know. Two, my belief would be meaningless. Substituting belief for evidence is how gods and religions got started in the first place.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 1st, 2011

• Well said, that sums up the entire ID ideology, a substitution of evidence with belief.
  I'm probably a little late to contribute to the whole 'golden ratio' thing, but the reason the golden ratio exists is because it is efficient, if it weren't efficient it would be selected out of existence, as predicted by evolutionary theory.
  Thus far Nick and NOS have produced nothing but quote mines and spurious challenges padded out with quotes from other peoples posts, baced up by hubris and a lack of genuinely logical thinking.
  How about posting something entirely written by you, which explains something unaccounted for by science and corroborating ID/creationism? Just a thought, it might actually get you a smidgeon of respect, even if you're utterly wrong, again.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 2nd, 2011

• @gillaspy
  
  Those two videos are helpful and informative. Here is More on Common Descent.
  
  Under History, at the link, it mentions that Maupertuis deduced common descent in 1740, followed by Kant in 1790. Even Darwin's grandpa speculated on common descent.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 2nd, 2011

• I find it interesting that you both can say "anythings possible" and seem to put faith on something that could of happened without any sound evidence whatsoever? Aliens could have happened but God never! All you are both doing are parroting others who came before you.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 2nd, 2011

• Slow down there, Nick. Nobody said "anything's possible." Speaking for myself, I said:
  
  "Given enough time, every possible event becomes a "likely" event. A specific combination of a finite number of alleles might be "unlikely" ...to occur randomly in a year, or 100 years, or even 100,000 years. But if a given combination is possible, then time and probability insure that it will eventually occur.
  
  "...Eventually, anything that CAN happen WILL happen."
  
  You said, "anything's possible." That is incorrect, and nobody has posted it here except you.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 2nd, 2011

• The very time evolutionists need for chance generation in life is the devil that works against them in the form of the Second Law.
  
  Steven Meyers, working with a brilliant statitician William Dempski and Douglas Axe gives a "provisional" statitical probability for chance producing all the necessary proteins needed to service a minimally complex cell is 1 chance in 10 to the 41,000th power!
  (Signature in the Cell, pg. 213; Meyers, 2009)

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 2nd, 2011

• Nick,
  
  The thing about what is and isnt possible. Here is a metaphore that should help you understand. Lets say you have a friend flying an airplane above your house. You go outside and set a coffie mug on the ground in your driveway and radio your friend to drop an egg out the plane window into the cup. It is POSSIBLE that he might make it in the cup (very unlikely) but possible. Now if you were to radio your friend to drop that egg into a coffie cup on your kitchen counter that would be IMPOSSIBLE.
  
  Dropping the egg into the cup in your driveway is like abiogenesis, or fibonacci sequences turning up for the first time in a life form. Dropping an egg into the cup on your kitchen counter from an airplane is like god creating life. Believing god is responsible requires thinking something not physically possible has taken place. Also as unlikely as hitting the cup with the egg from an airplane is, if millions of people were trying to do it for billions of years strait in a row then at some point its bound to happen. Thats like life getting going by abiogenesis, as unlikely as it is eventually it was bound to happen.
  
  Could life have been seeded on this world by aliens? Yes. But that just raises the same question about where life first started and that question will have the same answer whether it started here or on another world.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 2nd, 2011

• "Steven Meyers, working with a brilliant statitician William Dempski and Douglas Axe gives a "provisional" statitical probability for chance producing all the necessary proteins needed to service a minimally complex cell is 1 chance in 10 to the 41,000th power! (Signature in the Cell, pg. 213; Meyers, 2009)"
  
  The thing about this is it presupposes that the first life was a complete modern single celled organism. Thats just not reality and they are being intentionally misleading by making that statement.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 2nd, 2011

• "All you are both doing are parroting others who came before you."
  That's a bit rich don't you think Mr "Statue of David"?
  We know that life evolved from inanimate chemicals, partly from experimentation, but mostly because it's still made from inanimate chemicals, the question that neither theists nor scientists can answer is what makes those chemicals alive, the difference is theists claim to know, scientists are honest enough to admit that they don't.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 3rd, 2011

• ''...the difference is theists claim to know, scientists are honest enough to admit that they don't.''
  
  Exactly. It's as if believers don't want to know how things work. They say, "God did it," and that's enough for them. Something inside them has switched off the curiosity they were born with. The dullest people I've met have been the least curious.
  
  I suspect that some believers actually hate science, b/c knowledge displaces belief. The more you learn,the less you need to believe. They prefer to know less and believe more. Faith to me is shameful. It means you've given up inquiring, and now you just want a book full of answers handed to you. How can they stand it?

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 3rd, 2011

• It is always good to learn and discover. True, some believe "blind faith" is good enough. Many do not have a correct understanding of what faith means. I can talk more about this another time if you would like.
  
  Gillaspy, Any probabilistic approach to the origin of life can only ever be a calculated guess even though it is interesting to see what some in their field believe. It is one thing to speak of probabilities but quite another to demonstrate them. Abiogenesis defies any and all scientific explanation. If it could be adequately explained through natural phenomena then a probability could be posited, but as it stands, no probability can be assigned to it whatsoever.
  
  Your use of an illustration to distinguish between what you deem to be possible or impossible and as a simple thought experiment there is nothing wrong with using such an analogy to identify modality.
  
  However, it simply does not follow that this analogy can be translated to abiogenesis because such an occurrence has never been manifested let alone measured. As such, until an acceptable scientific answer for how inorganic matter can be transformed into primitive biotic systems is found then the rational probability of such an occurrence is zero.
  
  Simply arguing for a revolution given astronomical time will not change the result. In fact, if the probability is zero then infinite time fares no better either. Ultimately, you need to show that the actual probability of abiogenesis is greater than zero and that this probability can be accounted for given the limited duration of the universe. An illustration about the definition of modality is simply beside the point.
  
  Another problem for time based cosmic lottery pundits is how they account for the necessity of biological reproduction given that abiogenesis has occurred. If life can be created by non-life then it becomes inexplicable as to why existing life now needs to create life instead.
  
  Really, if it is even possible for abiogenesis to create life then why can't any and all life be created the same way? Oh, that would be just too improbable... :)

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 3rd, 2011

• Pocketnut, Interesting. Theists are dishonest because we believe the Bible, but scientists are honest because they profess ignorance.
  
  That mind is so closed that no light can get through.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 3rd, 2011

• Nick
  ''Many do not have a correct understanding of what faith means.''
  But your own understanding is correct? Since every believer defines faith in his/her own way, I predict that you will find a lot of slop in your definition.
  
  ''It is one thing to speak of probabilities but quite another to demonstrate them.''
  Not so. Businesses demonstrate probabilities every day. Every casino calculates its profit margin based on probabilities. The amount you pay for life insurance is based on actuarial tables, which are probabilities of life expectancy based on statistical records.
  
  ''As such, until an acceptable scientific answer for how inorganic matter can be transformed into primitive biotic systems is found then the rational probability of such an occurrence is zero.''
  
  But you have already indicated that you do not accept scientific answers. That's why we're still here, bouncing the ball back and forth.
  
  And how did you find the probability to be zero? I can assert with equal certainty that the probability is 0.000 000 000 000 000 001. The point is that all the necessary chemicals were available. All they needed was to have their atoms and molecules arranged, in any of several possible ways. That of course is just a matter of time. Do you have any concept of a billion years? Go ahead; count to a billion as fast as you can.
  
  ''Theists are dishonest because we believe the Bible, but scientists are honest because they profess ignorance.''
  
  I submit that you believe only selected parts of the Bible. Tell me if I'm wrong. And scientists are indeed honest when they profess ignorance. Theists are dishonest when they say with authority that they know how things began.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 3rd, 2011

• "Ultimately, you need to show that the actual probability of abiogenesis is greater than zero and that this probability can be accounted for given the limited duration of the universe.
  
  If life can be created by non-life then it becomes inexplicable as to why existing life now needs to create life instead.
  
  Really, if it is even possible for abiogenesis to create life then why can't any and all life be created the same way? Oh, that would be just too improbable"
  
  Look nick, you need to get a grip. Youre wrong about this bud and im trying to let you down easy so dont take this harsh. If you want to maybe going to a college biology class would help you feel youve heard it from an authoratative source. Its too easy to dismiss me as some random no one and not let me threaten your world view.
  
  You dont understand the situation and you repeat the creationist science fiction fantasy like your gospel. I can try and turn you onto the truth, but its up to you to step into the light.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 3rd, 2011

• I we're talking probability, a common creationist myth is the either god exists or he doesn't, as if it's a 50/50 possibility, wrong again, the number of Egyptian gods has been shown to be in the region of 1000 separate deities, the Incas and Aztecs had in the region of 60 each, the Celts had a further 60 and so on, until we end up at a point where the possibility that the christian god has odds of thousands to one against of being the one true god, never mind the only one that exists.
  As for honesty, pretending that you know something when you don't is dishonest, scientists will generally admit their shortcomings, theists will argue until they're blue in the face that they know, but have no idea, religious texts being notoriously vague and light on details.
  If you honestly believe that you know 100% what happened, why can you provide no evidence, apart of course from the quote mined words of scientists and vague bible quotes?
  Time for some soul searching I think, are you really as honest as you believe?

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 4th, 2011

• I see this time and time again. Naturalists tend to represent probability by using aphorisms that only confuse the issue:
  
  -If you throw enough darts you are bound to hit a bullseye.
  -If you sink enough lines you are sure to catch a fish.
  -If you allow enough time then time will allow for anything.
  
  But what they are really doing can be represented by another:
  
  - If you market enough luck people will think they can buy probability.
  
  It is as if discernable probabilities have given way to indiscernable ones and as a result people have become desensitised to the extraordinary. I don't think most naturalists have really thought their extrapolations through.
  
  For example, if anything can happen given enough time then given enough time a God will evolve that will create a universe just like ours. Whoa! Maybe naturalists can accept a creator after all.
  
  Somehow I am being accused of dishonesty for not being able to answer questions like "Who created God, or rather, where did God come from" because it goes beyond the limits of finite intelligence.
  
  It is not a question that humans can answer based on the present state of human intelligence, which is bound to the limits of this material world.
  
  That does not mean there is no answer. It just means that the answer is something currently beyond human comprehension.
  
  The most we can comprehend is that, in this material universe, life comes from life. Eternity or eternal existence is not something we have experience with, and can only approach it subjectively, as a matter of faith, based on the limits of what we can know.
  
  Obviously, our intelligence tells us, "the buck stops here," wherever "here" is. At some point, there is God, and from God all else has come.
  
  Beyond the point where there is God, human intelligence has no experiential information.
  
  Even the material world is something that we do not yet fully understand, let alone the spiritual one.
  
  It's like asking what was before the Big Bang. Do we really know? Yet, the universe exists, and it had to have some cause.
  
  Because our human intelligence has not yet revealed all that there is to the universe, does not mean that there is nothing else, and the laws of the "something else" may not be limited to what we know.
  To demand there cannot be a God or Creator would be dishonest right?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 4th, 2011

• ive actually taken a college level probability class and i can tell you that youre wrong. You wont believe it from me because im just some random internet person, thats why you should take the class yourself. Or do the research yourself.
  
  about a god or creator, the only possible place left for a creator to exist is having set the big bang off because nothing in the universe that has ever been observed requires or even sudgests a creator was involved. The reason why at the big bang is because we are stuck in this four dimensional spacetime and have a hard time seeing back to before that point.(time as we know it didnt even exist before that point) But if history is any guide then its safe to bet that eventually the big bang will be fully explained too, just like the movement of the sun was explained, and tides were explained, and the diversity of life was explained, and the formation of the earth was explained. But if that god exists it is not the god of the bible, or hinduism, or any other religion on earth because those gods are claimed to be responsable for much more that just setting off the start of the universe. and saying that our limited brains cant comprehend god is a cop out because our limited brains are able to comprehend pretty much anything and have studied everything observable and testable in the universe given our current level of technology.
  
  Did you know that when newton formulated his three laws that he was completely crestfallen because they disproved gods involvement in all observable events in the universe? He really wanted to find god, to prove gods hand at work but he found just the opposite to his great dismay. Its been the same with every scientific advancement, it isnt that people want to pove there is no god, they just keep better refining our understanding and realizing allong that way that there was never actually any god involved in the first place.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 5th, 2011

• then again there are still some interesting things out there. This movie might be right up your alley.
  
  

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 5th, 2011

• then again there are still some interesting things out there. This movie might be right up your alley.
  
  

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 5th, 2011

• You think because you took a science course in college you have superior knowledge over anyone? I suppose you can keep telling yourself that.
  
  You are clearly wrong, Sir Issac Newton did believe in a monotheistic God, he rejected the Trinity doctrine as do I, yet he believed in a masterful creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.
  
  I received a letter today from a Professor in Norwary who had this to say about a recent illustration you shared with me you might find interesting. He wrote:
  
  "I see a fundamental flaw in the examples used. The reason why the examples do not fit the origin of life, is that they speak about one single event. I suppose that the statistics of proteins relates to the chances of amino acids to occupy the correct positions in the proteins necessary for a minimally complex cells. However, the issue is not only the complexity of proteins, but many other issues are involved as well. The primary issue is synthesis, first of amino acids, and second, of amino acids into proteins. Any synthesis needs energy, and the two pressing issues for the mentioned syntheses, are the availability of bio-atoms (atoms used on DNA and proteins) in the ocean existing before life (or the place for the synthesis), and the available energy sources.
  
  Regarding atoms, the most important problem relates to the availability of phosphorus (for the DNA). In the early earth the primary source for phosphorus would have been the highly insoluble fluo-apatite (I take the name from memory). It is very unlikely that the contents of phosphorus in the ocean could be high enough for a synthesis of DNA bases.
  
  The energy issue is just as problematic. The Quantum theory teaches us that atoms and molecules only accept energy of certain Wavelengths and rejects other wavelengths. The basic energy source on the early earth would have been the sun. Some of its energy (the correct wavelengths) could be used for synthesis of bio-elements. But the problem is that if an amino acid was produced by a particular amount of energy from the sun, the next wave of energy would destroy the amino acid. The energy from the sun is millons of times more destructive than it is constructive.
  
  For the origin of a protein, therefore, four basic requirements must be fulfilled:
  
  1. The right kind of bio-atoms must exist in solution very close to one another ("close" means about the size of an atom).
  
  2. Energy Quants with exactly the correct wavelengths to make a synthesis of the atoms must come in a fraction of a second to do the synthesis.
  
  3) A mechanism shielding the amino acid from the destructive energy coming in the next second must immediately come into effect.
  
  4) The right kind of energy must assemble the one hundred or one thousand amino acids in the correct position to make a protein.
  
  Whereas the chances of the correct positions of amino acid can be calculated, I do not think any probability calculation can be made for points 2, 3, and 4.
  
  Instead of the egg-in-a-cup, I would use another illustration:
  
  When I walk on the beach after a storm, I may see a figure in the sand resembling the letter "r," the first letter of my first name. When I walk on the beach after the next storm, I may see a figure resembling the letter "o," the second letter of my first name. But this formation is probably on another place of the beach than where a previously saw the "r," and the formation resembling an "r" is deleted by the second storm.
  
  If I walk on the beach after a storm and I see all the fifteen letters of my name in the sand, I know that this is not caused by the storm.
  
  ...continuing

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 5th, 2011

• -continued
  
  To form the simplest viable organism, therefore, cannot occur instantly, but several thousand small molecules must be synthesized, shielded after they are formed, and lastly being brought together. No one has ever made a theoretical model regarding how this could occur. One reason is that the formation of such a "simple structure" would violate most of the fundamental physical and chemical laws that we are familiar with. To compare it with a chance hit of an egg in a cup is therefore nonsensical."

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 5th, 2011

• "I received a letter today from a Professor in Norwary"
  
  I dont believe you. There wasnt time for you to print send and recieve a reply in the form of a letter in such a short time.
  
  And ill say again that the idea that the first life had to be a fully modern single celled organism is disengenuous.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 5th, 2011

• If youre "professor" wants to email me directly use gillaspy@buffalo.edu.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 5th, 2011

• A letter in the form of an email. Obviously I did not send a telegram to Norway and rush anyone for a reply. Why so defensive? I have no reason to lie as it goes against my principles. Please be reasonable and civil. Imputing dishonest motives is an ugly trait.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 5th, 2011

• Well lets assume your "professor" is what he you say he is, I still stand by my analogy and ill tell you why. Life is made out of normal elements arranged in normal chemical bonds, nothing supernatural about it. The fact that the arrangement is complex does not by itself prove anything other than that it is complex. The complexity does not prove intelligent intervention. Claiming that life must have been arranged intelligently is not a supportable claim because there is nothing supernatural about life. Could a hypothetical “god” have reached through into our universe and by magical intervention created life before slipping back into the realms from where it came never to be heard from again? Sure, but there is no evidence to support such a claim. Very simple life, self replicating molecules with some sort of primitive chemical metabolism could have arisen spontaneously, no god required. That life could have been the starting point for the development of more and more complexity as natural selection took hold. The important thing is that it is possible. Mind numbingly improbable that you could throw the same chemicals in a Petri dish and ever hope to observe it in your lifetime, but over the hundreds of millions or billions of years the odds start looking a lot better. Is there any way to “prove” that some god didn’t slip into our universe and start life? No. But there is no reason that anyone needs to believe that is the only way it could have happened. There is a natural process that can lead to the same event, no god required. So, that’s why my analogy, possible but improbable, or impossible and supernatural.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 5th, 2011

• @Nick- I have seen this time and again from theists, you misread my words, turn them about and offer a rebuttal based upon what I did not say.
  What I said was that quite apart from it being highly unlikely that your god exists, it is just as unlikely that he is the one true god.
  I can quite happily grasp the concept of a creative intelligence, what I deny is that you we have any evidence for it, you are making a claim you cannot support with facts and seek to 'prove' it is so by the conviction of your beliefs alone.
  In any case, even if we did uncover evidence for a creator, that simply leaves us with another question, where did this creator come from? It doesn't answer any questions, it doesn't solve any problems, unless your problem is having rational thought, the bible offers no real answers, neither does any other religious text, yet you insist that everyone should believe what you believe because you believe it, casting scientific facts aside, despite the fact that it's statistically probable that science has saved your life at least once, where biblical beliefs would have led to your demise.
  Your beliefs are superstition until you can show otherwise.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 6th, 2011

• @Nick
  ''If I walk on the beach after a storm and I see all the fifteen letters of my name in the sand, I know that this is not caused by the storm.''
  
  You agree that random generation of all the letters of your name is improbable. However, you have no problem accepting that one letter can be generated randomly.
  
  If one letter can be generated randomly by the storm, then so can two. Chances are that it would take much longer.
  
  If two letters can appear, then so can three. To see all the letters of your name appear correctly during your lifetime is improbable--but not impossible.
  
  The only factor you're disputing is how much time it will take.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 6th, 2011

• Please know I am not "insisting" you believe anything. You don't have to accept the Bible or my God and Creator either. It is entirely up to you. I do believe the Gospel I have come to know and love offers much more. Another discussion. I appreciate you telling me your opinion and viewpoints but some of you are just as dogmatic "the Bible has no real answers." Sound like you are just as insistent as I have ever come across.
  
  What I find interesting is that it was admitted that even if there was a Creator discovered this still wouldn't satisfy you. Instead of being humble we would still have to demand "Where did you come from? You owe us an explanation!" Please.
  
  When I get the question, "Who created God?" or "what /who was before God?" I show that the Bible says that God is eternal. Then the question arises, "Can anything/anyone be eternal? As an answer I point to the equation E=mc2. This equation implies that we cannot destroy anything, we can only change something. Matter can be changed into energy and energy into matter. This means that either energy or matter is/can be eternal. When the scientific establishment on the basis of this equation accept that something can be eternal, the question, "what/who was before God?" is unnecessary.
  
  The equation neither prove nor suggest that God is eternal, but it shows that something/someone CAN be eternal. Thus, the words of the Bible regarding the eternality of God accords with scientific thinking.
  
  I will come back later to comment on another expression made by Mr. Natural AOTQ. Enjoy the day gentlemen.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 6th, 2011

• The reason I say that the bible has no real answers is that it does not specifically answer our questions, and in places is so obviously anachronistic as to suggest that it was neither inspired nor written by a deity, but human beings, who in turn had such poor knowledge that their idea of reality would be laughable to most people in the current era.
  The reason you feel it offers so much more is because it is so vague, you can interpret it any way you like and still hold on to outdated ideas, with the added bonus of being able to claim divine authority to do so.
  Yes, scientists believe that energy and matter are interchangeable, however this does not mean they do not change and alter over time, the definition of eternal existence is to be unchanging.
  What I find interesting is that you reject science with one hand, and use it as evidence with the other, not exactly consistent, is it?

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 7th, 2011

• "because it is so vague, you can interpret it any way you like"
  
  exactly
  
  "reject science with one hand, and use it as evidence with the other"
  
  exactly

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 7th, 2011

• Nick
  ''E=mc^2''
  The equation describes physical phenomena. Some folks believe their god is spiritual, not physical. What about you?

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 7th, 2011

• Nick
  ''E=mc^2''
  The equation describes physical phenomena. Some folks believe their god is spiritual, not physical. What about you?

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 7th, 2011

• Yes, my God is spiritual but he is a God of dynamic energy and unceasing power. The analogy was to help you understand that you have no problem accepting that something can exist eternally correct? You don't have to an Einstein to see this is the case.
  
  Getting back to a comment you made yesterday. What got forgotten here is the destructive element. The letters are destroyed again before a meaningful series emerges. The impossibility is seen in that in more than four billion years of rock formation on Earth, we never find anybody’s name anywhere.
  
  The chance can be calculated if the letters are not destroyed too, and they are not of the order of Rolf’s Name, but of a accurate description of his whole genome. Three billion nucleotides. Maybe you would like to comment on that?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 7th, 2011

• just because my dog is loving and "god" is supposed to be loving doesnt prove that god exists. Why should e=mc^2 prove that god exists?
  
  "three billion nucleotides" Again with the demand that modern life with its gigantic dna be what must be spontaniously generated. That isnt what anyone is proposing here. Simple self replicating molecules with cyclical chemical reactions aka metabolism. Thats what is more likely.
  
  Did you know that according to quantim mechanical theory there is a chance that if you throw a tennis ball at a wall that it will pass through instead of bouncing off? The world is already capable of some pretty strange stuff, no god required. Something to think about.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 7th, 2011

• It always amuses me to see people claiming that god is this, or wants that, as if they know the exact nature and desires of a being who they will also proclaim to be unknowable.
  Each of the processes in the human body can be broken down in to simpler processes, which in turn can be further simplified, to a point where it is possible to understand the method by which they may have evolved, and giving lie to the fallacious 'irreducible complexity' argument.
  I've been searching for a creationist take on so called 'ring species' but so far nothing, because it is inexplicable without evolutionary theory. Another nail in the ID coffin.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 8th, 2011

• Nick:
  
  ''you have no problem accepting that something can exist eternally''
  
  But I do have a problem with that. You're confusing the real with the abstract. e=mc^2 is not a real object that exists somewhere in the universe. The symbols describe an abstract concept. Even if you carved e=mc^2 into the rocky surface of an asteroid it would not be eternal, b/c the asteroid itself is not eternal.
  
  e=mc^2 does not exist. Show me anywhere in the universe where you can find an e=mc^2. Under the gravel on the surface of Mars? On the bottom of one of Europa's frozen seas? Where can I find one?
  
  Do you understand the difference between real and conceptual? A concept is only in your mind. Even then, it doesn't exist. The neurons in your brain exist, but e=mc^2 does not exist. It's a concept. If e=mc^2 exists, then please find one for me.
  
  ''three billion nucleotides''
  
  Gillaspy has patiently explained to you several times that primordial cells (prokaryotes) do NOT have 3 billion nucleotides. Prokaryotes do not even have nucleii. You continue to ignore this and you keep trying to weasel your 3e9 nucleotides back into your argument.
  
  I don't believe you are too dense to realize what you are doing. What you are doing is (1) deliberately misquoting us, (2) pretending to misunderstand, and (3) regurgitating your creationist pap. The only way you can make your crippled argument for I.D. is by evading the evidence, the science. Evasion is the principal tactic of creationists. You have been exposed.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 8th, 2011

• As I have time I will address more of your remarks since I have been "exposed." C'mon, be sensible.
  
  Here is one comment that was recently made by Gillaspy.
  
  "Did you know that according to quantim mechanical theory there is a chance that if you throw a tennis ball at a wall that it will pass through instead of bouncing off? The world is already capable of some pretty strange stuff, no god required. Something to think about.
  
  My professor friend I bounced this off had this to say below:
  
  The conclusion is wrong; the issue does not relate to time, but it has to do with the availability of bio-atoms in suspension and their equilibrium constants, the availability of energy usable for synthesis (versus destructive energy), and the fundamental chemical and physical laws. A process that is forbidden by chemical and physical laws will never happen regardless of how long time that is available.
  
  The issue is the origin of life. For several decades, an extensive research has been performed in different laboratories exclusively dealing with the issue, in order to suggest plausible models for the synthesis of amino acids and nucleotides that could lead to a protobiont, or a very "simple" cell-like structure. I am not aware of any real progress in this field, or any model that is plausible.
  
  Life means replication, and the simplest thinkable "cell" must consist of several thousand different molecules. No one would claim that the right atoms SUDDENLY were organized into the right molecules, and that these in turn were organized into nucleotides and proteins, To the effect that a simple cell with interdependent parts SUDDENLY originated.
  
  Any attempt to explain chemical evolution is based on the assumption that the parts of simple proteins and and simple DNA or RNA fractions evolved over long time spans, and that they somehow found together to form the building blocks of life. And here we see the basic problem illustrated by my storm example. The simplest thinkable cell must consist of at least a small part of DNA or RNA and some proteins. And it must be able to reproduce itself. In Stanley Miller's experiments in 1953, a few amino acid occurred when energy was released in a reducing atmosphere. However, once the the amino acids where formed, they were shielded from the next energy release, because this energy release could destroy the newly formed amino acids. If Millers experiment was continued for 5 billion years, the results would be that amino acids were formed and destroyed, formed and destroyed for 5 billion years. In relation to chemical and physical laws, the time element is irrelevant. What is forbidden by these laws, will never happen.
  
  So, the situation is: In the early earth there was water (an ocean), atoms of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen etc existed. In order to form bio-molecules, these atoms must have been suspended in water, and chemical laws would regulate how many atoms of each kind could exist in suspension (equlibrium constants). For a synthesis, energy was needed, and its ability of being used to make bio-molecules is regulated by chemical and physical laws. Only particular processes are possible; others are impossible. For chemical evolution to work, a molecule was formed, and then there must have been a mechanism shielding this molecule from being destroyed by the next energy release, and a mechanism that would store these molecule for later use. This process must have occurred millions of times, and different specialized molecules must have been formed, shielded and stored this way. Then, at different times, some stored molecules would unite to form amino acids, and later proteins. Others would unite to form nucleotides.
  
  ...continuing

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 8th, 2011

• -continued
  
  And as time went on, more and more bio-elements united and formed the smallest thinkable cell. And accidentally, the DNA (or RNA) contained exactly the code that was necessary to form more proteins of the type that accidentally had been formed by the mentioned molecules. But even such a simple cell would contain an enormous amount of information.
  
  That something like this should happen is a fairy tale. The laws of thermodynamics (the entropy law is at work even in an open system), gravity and other laws simply would forbid this to happen-no question of how much time would elapse. The example of the storm and letters in the sand was used to show that life did not originate randomly in one step (like one egg hitting the cup). It also illustrated that once a small bio-molecule is formed, it will be destroyed if it is not shielded. It is unthinkable that we can find the 15 letters of my name in the sand after a storm. But this is a very simple scenario compared with all the complicated molecules that must have been formed, shielded, and stored in order to make a very simple cell by accident.
  
  When I have discussed issues with my colleagues at the university, we have often had different opinions. I respect the opinions of my colleagues, and would not question their intelligence or motives if they presented opinions that differed from mine. But I must say that if a scientist has an intimate knowledge of the living cell and has the view that life originated by chance, I am forced to question either his mind or his motives.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 8th, 2011

• "The conclusion is wrong; the issue does not relate to time, but it has to do with the availability of bio-atoms in suspension and their equilibrium constants, the availability of energy usable for synthesis (versus destructive energy), and the fundamental chemical and physical laws. A process that is forbidden by chemical and physical laws will never happen regardless of how long time that is available."
  
  Then your friend has never heard of quantum tunneling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelling

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 8th, 2011

• Here, since im to lazy to try and explain it i found this that does a good enough job. I think you and your friends should be ashamed at your lack of up to date knowledge.
  
  

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 8th, 2011

• They have at least some million nucleotides. Those cells are "simpler" and thought to be more primitive, from there their prefix "pro".
  
  If it's easy to build them and make them work, you should bring me the results of the work done!
  
  I read indeed about tunneling, interference experiments with one or more slits at atomic level and tunnel effect diodes.
  
  Instead of guessing what I have or haven't read, you should bring what I have asked for: evidence of experiments with tennis balls passing through walls because of such phenomena as "tunneling".
  Of course I suppose you are not playing tennis with plasma balls... this way I am now more convinced you really don't know what you are talking about. Tennis anyone?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 9th, 2011

• @nick, first of all, it is you who should be providing evidence to substantiate your claim that your god exists, secondly, you have stated that you have read the subjects mentioned above, but offer no refutation, which rather begs the question, have you read and understood these things, or are you just saying you have?
  The whole reason these discussion so often degenerate into vitriol is because creationists will not produce any evidence, but will happily quote mine and misrepresent genuine science, the very science they seek to disprove, yet cannot see why this appears foolish to others, never mind claiming knowledge and qualifications they do not possess, case in point, Kent Hovinds spurious doctorate.
  Have you also researched 'ring species'?

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 9th, 2011

• Nick, have you found an e=mc^2 yet? If not, here's an idea. Have you looked behind the couch? Many lost items turn up behind the couch. Did your professor offer any tips on where to look for an e=mc^2? Surely he would know where to look.
  
  The reason you can't find the origins of life is b/c you aren't looking for it. You are looking instead for a way to prove that it could not have happened.
  
  I summarized your backwards approach earlier. Here it is again, dumbed down a little more:
  
  1. Self-replicating organisms are complex.
  2. Complex things can't happen by accident.
  3. This proves that a god must have done it.
  
  Nick, that's not how you prove anything.
  
  Why not take another look behind the couch?

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 9th, 2011

• "you should bring what I have asked for: evidence of experiments with tennis balls passing through walls"
  
  because its only possible in theory but so mund numbingly improbable that you could run an experiment for a thousand lifetimes and still the odds wouldnt favor it occuring. but quantum mechanical theory is one of if not the most powerfull predictive tools ever created for predicting the behavior of physical systems and its never been wrong yet.
  
  i dont think you watched the clip, you should.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 9th, 2011

• The reference to quantum tunnelling does not explain anything in relation to the origin of life. First when you apply quantum tunneling to the formation of bio-molecules, their shielding and storage and to the synthesis of the smallest thinkable cell, would your reference make sense.
  
  I ask 3 questions:
  
  1. What is the minimum information content (in bytes) of the smallest thinkable cell-like structure that can reproduce itself?
  
  2. What is the maximum information content (in bytes) that can be established by chance (randomly)?
  
  3. Does you agree with those who say (on the basis of probability theory) that an event that is less likely than 1 in minus 10 to the 50th power, will never occur? If not what is your number?
  
  4. Does you agree that the formation of the smallest thinkable cell-like structure could not happen suddenly, but thousands of small molecules must have been randomly made, and must have been shielded and stored?
  
  5. Which shielding mechanisms are a part of your model?
  
  6. What storage mechanisms are part of your model?
  
  These are specific questions needing specific answers. A reference to a Wickipedia article is not an answer. More to come.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 9th, 2011

• Yep, I researched "ring species" have you?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 9th, 2011

• My refference to quantum tunneling was not to provide explination for processes connected to abiogenesis. My mention of quantum tunneling was only to draw attention to the strange and interesting things that quantum mechanical theory tells us about the world we inhabit.
  
  obviously you are fighting the urge to watch the clip so here it is again.
  
  
  You should watch this because it explains why your 6 questions are irrelevant.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 9th, 2011

• Nick, you're still fighting the science. Give up. You lost the battle before you even started. Biological evolution is a done deal. You might as well argue that the Amish way of life is God's will for everybody.
  
  Your pseudo-scientific "3 questions" are just another stalling tactic. When you don't get the exact answers you're looking for, that will "prove" to you that you and your Creationist nonsense were right all along. Do you really think we can't see what you are doing?
  
  You're trying to turn time back, so you can live pre-Darwin. Then your ideas would be in sync with a majority.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 9th, 2011

• @nick- That's 6 questions, also bytes are a measure of computer based information. I have not worked out the probability of an event not occurring, I tend to prefer to look at what has occurred.
  Yes, I have researched ring species, and along with any evidence to support you hypothesis, I am awaiting your rebuttal with baited breath, because it must be a real doozy if you've held it back so long, I'm sure it'll turn up sooner or later, just as soon as you can locate the corresponding pamphlet to quote from.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 10th, 2011

• @PocketNut
  ''...as soon as you can locate the corresponding
  pamphlet to quote from.''
  
  The laundromat was fresh out of creationist pamphlets, so we'll have to wait until they restock their supply. However, we can still take a Virtual Tour of the Creationist Museum while we wait for the pamphlets.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 10th, 2011

• Thanks for pointing out not 3 but 6. I need to remember and go back and proofread my response more carefully. Can you let me know what pamphlet I am quoting from when you find it??? I wonder why you are not so harsh with your anti-God friends when they want me to review their sources via website or videos? Can I ask, Where do you do your research? Was everything you shared with me an original thought?
  
  Looking at your ring species question. Are the differences between two "sister" species (e.g., herring gulls, and the lesser black-backed gulls in the same geographical area in Britain, and yet are not interfertile gulls) the result of an increase of genetic information that was not already present in an ancestral gull species no longer extant?
  
  Does any one of the species in a ring species show that it is poised for formation of a new phylum? No, there is nothing that can show us that new information was added to any sister species in habitats that form a spatial (geographical) ring (e.g., 'around a mountain,' 'around the polar latitudes,' etc).
  
  Salamander species are not evidencing new genetic information such that one among them is finally on the cusp of becoming something more than -- or other than -- the salamander species that it is. The same thing goes for gulls. God's law respecting reproduction according to "kinds" as God defines a "kind" guarantees that gulls will not be interfertile with bats, but this does not mean that God has guaranteed that there will not occur subgroupings of a "kind" through fracturings in an original gene pool, nor does he have a law that, in the event of the formation of subgroupings in a kind, the subgroupings have to be interfertile.
  
  There can occur eventual loss of information in one of the sister species so that it is finally not interfertile with another one (or more?) of its sister species. But a gull is a gull is a gull, and a salamander is a salamander is a salamander. We do not find DNA shading in a Genesis kind such that it is becoming a different kind.
  
  Everyone, your demeaning comments and taunts do not speak well of you. If you cannot carry on a respectful dialogue we will end it here.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 10th, 2011

• Moving on. If we ask where quantum particles originate, we are told that their source is the quantum vacuum. If they are derived from a source then this source cries out for an explanation too. Contrary to popular opinion, the quantum vacuum is not "nothing" but is a kind of plenum and therefore has its own set of laws that govern it.
  
  Furthermore, if it operates under law it cannot be truly random and it if cannot be truly random then it must have a measure of predictability. Evidence of this can be seen in certain formulations outlining quantum field theory and quantum computing.
  
  The upshot of this is that quantum theory is a physical theory concerning physical manifestations - however paradoxical they may appear. Yet, trying to belt a physical answer out of a metaphysical question is like trying to strike water from a rock - and it takes an acceptance of miracles to believe that.
  
  In fact, when you distil the issue down to first principles belief in a naturalistic origin of the universe is just fideism enshrined in a scientific mantle so as to appear authoritative. But the emperor wears no clothes.
  
  Really, it is an irrational imbroglio to believe that something can be its own origin or that being can arise from non-being. I realize you probably will continue to chide because you are likely to believe any contradiction that will maintain your intellectual pretense.
  
  If you think the “world” and thus by extension the universe is “capable of some pretty strange stuff” than why not the existence of God?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 10th, 2011

• The vacume of space at the sub planck scale is broiling with energy and activity. Its an amazing facinating world and i hope that at some time in the future we will tap into the latent zero point energy of the very fabric of space time.
  
  Far from being "irrational" believing that things dont need a creator is far more logical than the alternative. Believing that a creator is necessary. Following that logic the creator must need a creator and that creator a creator of its own as well. Id be very open to a god existing if anything was found to support its existence. Unfortunately nothing has been found to sudgest a god. Facinating amazing things that stretch the limits of the mind to comprehend because they are so foreign to our experiences but nothing supernatural.
  
  Ill take your lack of response to the video as admission that you were opperating on a limited set of data and drawn the wrong conclusions initially. Thats one of the most amazing experiences, making new realizations.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 10th, 2011

• Nick, it's not obvious to me what you are trying to do in this thread. I read your comments and I wonder, are you trying to prove something? Disprove something? Whatever it is you're trying to do, can you summarize it in a few words?
  
  Can you simply state your goals here? Forget the salamanders, the quantum stuff, the ''irrational imbroglio,'' and what your professors tell you. Just say what you hope to prove or disprove.
  
  Next, what did you learn from the video?

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 11th, 2011

• this is my rebuttal to the argument about only changes within a "kind" being possible. Generally it boils down to a lack of understanding on the subject.
  
  
  
  I tend to agree with the following video. Creationism is not supportable with hard evidence. I want there to be evidence but there isnt.
  
  

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 11th, 2011

• I suspect that Nick is covertly watching these videos and keeping quiet, b/c he knows his beliefs have been refuted by the evidence.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 11th, 2011

• Sorry but you are mistaken. I was not keeping quiet but helping my friends all day move into their new home and just now watching the video for the first time.
  
  Why do you have to be so belittling and continue to berate me? How do you know what I am thinking? C'mon fellas. You think because you can forward a youtube video from Dr. Jack Szosta this dismantles my position and proves your theories a fact? It does not PROVE my 6 questions were irrelevant as you wish either.
  
  Here, I can cite counter arguments right back if you want to communicate this way.
  
  http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html
  http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... ranes.html
  http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... e_lab.html

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 12th, 2011

• “http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html”
  
  This argument assumes that the first life was essentially a modern cell with its complex protein machinery. This is a red herring argument because that isn’t what scientists are claiming.
  
  “http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... ranes.html
  http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/ ... e_lab.html”
  
  These links don’t work.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 12th, 2011

• Nick, I didn't say (or think) you were hiding out. I wondered if you had watched the video(s). You have now affirmed that you have watched one of them, but you still haven't indicated what you learned from it or what you dispute.
  
  ''it is [irrational] to believe that something can be its own origin or that being can arise from non-being.''
  
  Can you give examples where one of us has made either of those errors? If you can't, then aren't you just blowing wind?
  
  ''Was everything you shared with me an original thought?''
  
  Why do you want original thoughts? The science has been in place and settled for more than a century. There is little remaining knowledge of evolution that can be considered "original." Does your 21st-century Bible have any original thoughts?
  
  ''We do not find DNA shading in a Genesis kind such that it is becoming a different kind.''
  
  I think most of us non-creationists agree that Genesis does not cover DNA or biological evolution of species.
  
  ''If you cannot carry on a respectful dialogue we will end it here.''
  
  Nick, no matter how hard we appear to be on you, I don't think anyone here wants you to commit suicide.
  
  Once again, can you summarize in a few words what you are trying to prove or disprove here? It's not clear.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 12th, 2011

• Then why such an idiotic comment??? "I suspect that Nick is covertly watching these videos and keeping quiet, b/c he knows his beliefs have been refuted by the evidence."
  
  I just viewed it last night right before going to bed at midnight. Why the time constraints we will get there. I have several other discussions I am involved in and not just on AB on different topics so please be more patient.
  
  My own problems with the video are that the thermal vents are at the beck and call of evolution, at one point they cause one action at another point they do the opposite, which is it? the membrane supposedly created is so porous that it doesn’t stop any monomer, even damaging ones. The proto cell in the video only divides passively by external action against it, and when it divides the division is not colonizing but solely creates predatory competition. I hate to tell you but I think I learned as much from that video as when I watch children blowing soap bubbles in the air.
  
  The following video was made as a response to the video you sent me:
  
  http://youtu.be/4PRNcm8963s
  
  Take a look.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 12th, 2011

• Nick
  I watched the video and its author is being intellectually dishonest for a couple reasons. Firstly he implies that because life seems to have arisen in a relatively short time It must have been created by some supernatural force. That is not evidence; there is no reason why life couldn’t have arisen in a relatively short time. Even if the heavy bombardment wiped out all life it could have arisen again from scratch a second time.
  The second Series of subjects he presents have to do with the chemical impossibility of modern cell structures being formed in the pre biotic environment around geothermal vents. As stated already that is disingenuous because it assumes that life had to be like modern cells right from the start. Those modern characteristics he mentions could have developed later after life had evolved to occupy different environments.
  Bottom line is that the creator of that video is a smart guy who is knowingly twisting the information to trick the uneducated into rejecting abiogenesis.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 12th, 2011

• Here is a rebuttal to David Tenenbaum's rebuttal, posted by Nick, above.
  
  Title: Fail 101: Doesitaddup101 fail - On abiogenesis and scientific papers
  
  This video has its own problems:
  • It doesn't identify the narrator (scientist?);
  • The narrator has a thick slavic or Russian accent and he's very hard to follow;
  • The video is very poorly edited. Some frames are held too long, others not long enough,
  • The video makes unnecessary and unhelpful attempts at humor, which I can't follow b/c the narrator explains them in his heavy accent.
  
  In spite of these quibbles, the video completely debunks Tenenbaum's bad science, misquotes, faked (fraudulent) quotes, and ignorance of the chemistry.
  
  [ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=equ20anG40M ]

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 12th, 2011

• I apologize but for some reason I have not been getting all my comment alerts, not just from this discussion but from others. So your video didn't impress me and mine didn't impress you. Sorry mine was "poorly edited" are you critical and nitpick everything you can in life. Is that your approach? There is a pause button that allows you to catch up. I had to do it with the one sent me. Be reasonable.
  
  I want to share a comment on this comment one of you said recently from a friend of mine I showed this to as we were discussing this matter carefully. First, you said:
  
  "Far from being "irrational" believing that things dont need a creator is far more logical than the alternative. Believing that a creator is necessary. Following that logic the creator must need a creator and that creator a creator of its own as well."
  
  My friend had this to say and I believe he is right on spot. He said:
  
  "Frankly, this just demonstrates your correspondent's abject failure in understanding the argument. And, I might add, his prior commitment to naturalism. Because he seems to understand the concept of necessity conventionally, instead of modally, his answer completely misses the point.
  
  The argument from contingency can be used in a logically deductive way. If one is going to show that the argument isn't logical they must plausibly disprove the premises of it. Simply dismissing it, a la Dawkins, only exposes the shortcomings of one's own cosmogeny.
  
  You should inform him that the view he is presenting commits the same error that he accuses theists of, namely an infinite regression of causes that require an explanation. In other words, a commitment to what is absurd. However, there is no inherent contradiction in the concept of a necessarily existent being but there is in a series of infinite contingencies.
  
  Given that your correspondent believes that a creator is not modally necessary you should ask him what he thinks is. Whatever his answer he then needs to demonstrate the following:
  
  1. Why it is in fact modally necessary.
  2. What causal power it has over other objects.
  3. How necessity and causality are logically related within it, therefore making it believable.
  
  If he can't answer 1 then he is inadvertently admitting that a creator is a better explanation for fundamental contingent objects than naturalism. If he posits a contingent object in place of a necessary one then he also can't answer 1 and is making a self referentially incoherent statement. If he can plausibly answer 1 then he needs to prove 2 and show how such a necessarily existent object can logically cause contingencies to occur (like bringing forth being from non-being). If he can't provide an answer to both 1 and 2 then he can't answer 3. If he can't answer 3 then it follows logically that, when it comes to the foundations of reality, a creator is more believable than naturalism by virtue of it meeting all explanatory conditions in the most logically consistent manner.
  
  If he can't answer any or all points but still protests the correctness of his view then he is, in fact, a man of faith after all."

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 14th, 2011

• First since you’ve apparently given up on your creationist arguments ill assume the evolution portion of the debate is settled or at least not likely to move forward in any helpful direction any time soon.
  
  The argument that in order for something to have been created there must have been a creator begs the question; “wouldn’t the creator need something to have created it?” This is a serious dilemma for creationists because they will usually respond to the effect that god always existed and doesn’t need a creator. However that’s just inconsistent and deceptive word play designed to fool the layman into believing there is some rational way to swallow their load of garbage.
  
  The issue boils down to one salient point every time this argument surfaces. That point is that it is not possible to disprove the existence of gods who never leave evidence of their existence and whose existence is not the only explanation for any observable phenomenon.
  
  Conversely there is no way to Prove such a gods existence either.
  So in every instance both sides seeks to claim that their position (god exists/god doesn’t exist) is the default and the other must bear the burden of proof.
  
  I admit that there is no way to disprove a gods existence who started the big bang billions of years ago, BUT there is exactly the same logical reason to believe that aliens from a different dimension did it and the same reason logically to believe that this is a computer simulated reality, exactly the same evidence logical reason to think that green spotted unicorns created the universe. None of the above listed is any more proveable/disprovable than any other.
  
  Id go a step further and say that it is the people who believe in gods that bear the burden to prove such beings existence. Why? Because people are not born believing in such beings. People have to have gods explained to them, be indoctrinated into belief by their cultural influences. Absent of such cultural influences there is no natural path by which a person would arrive at a conclusion that gods exist, there simply is no proof. So I say the burden is on the believers to prove their fantastic claims.
  
  Lastly I do not make claims to know the cause of the big bang event. There are possible explanations that do not require intelligent intervention and those are what I lean towards favoring but I do not feel the need to claim to know something no one knows. If youre comfortable claiming to “know” then id like you to justify that belief with some proof.
  
  Just so you don’t think I ignored your post completely, you said “Given that your correspondent believes that a creator is not modally necessary you should ask him what he thinks is. Whatever his answer he then needs to demonstrate the following:”
  
  And to that I respond; I do not claim to believe in things that can not be proved, and I know there are some things that are not explained. I do not feel compelled to fill in the gaps with superstitious guesses about gods that cant be proved.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 14th, 2011

• Nick
  I haven't been getting comment alerts, either. My criticisms of the video being poorly edited, hard to understand with the narrator's thick accent, containing oblique and distracting humor, and requiring frequent pauses, all refer to the video that I myself posted as a rebuttal to David Tenenbaum's rebuttal. It appears to be a spontaneous narration delivered by a solitary individual, without script or re-takes.
  
  The metaphysical arguments you get from your philosopher friends are exercise in obfuscatory verbiage. They seek to conjure up a god a priori, out of thin air, by stringing abstract Greek and Latin derivatives together. No matter how patiently you explain why a god should exist, you can't cause a god to spring to life. You'll have better luck using peyote buttons and a Ouija board.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 15th, 2011

• @Nick- You might find fewer disparaging comments aimed at you if you bothered to produce something more substantial than pointing out that ring species do not form new phla, however that is not the point.
  The reason I mention ring species is that not only do they contradict biblical ideas, namely that species will only produce offspring with their own kind, yet animals at either end of a ring cannot, but also because evolutionary theory predicts this, creationism just says god did it, without supplying further information, where science can explain, or at least make an educated guess at, the mechanism by which these effects came about.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 15th, 2011

• An educated guess? That solves everything.
  
  Gilaspy, I again shared your comments with a friend of mine and I wanted to pass this on to you.
  
  Your comments=>> His is below.
  
  >>The argument that in order for something to have been created there >>must have been a creator begs the question; "wouldn't the creator >>need something to have created it?" This is a serious dilemma for >>creationists because they will usually respond to the effect that >>god always existed and doesn't need a creator. However that's just >>inconsistent and deceptive word play designed to fool the layman >>into believing there is some rational way to swallow their load of >>garbage.
  
  I can only assume from this statement that your correspondent still fails to understand the import of the argument from contingency. The argument itself is logically sound and is wholly consistent, despite his resentment to the contrary. Obviously he doesn't like the conclusion and so rails against it by trying to represent it improperly. It is now up to him to demonstrate just how it is "inconsistent and deceptive". If he can't do that then he needs to propose a rational yet godless alternative for the conclusion of the premises. If he still can't do that then he doesn't have a better explanation than God after all, thus leaving theists perfectly rational to not swallow his "garbage" and accept a creator of the universe instead.
  
  >>The issue boils down to one salient point every time this argument >>surfaces. That point is that it is not possible to disprove the >>existence of gods who never leave evidence of their existence and >>whose existence is not the only explanation for any observable >>phenomenon.>>>>Conversely there is no way to Prove such a gods existence either.>>So in every instance both sides seeks to claim that their position >>(god exists/god doesn't exist) is the default and the other must >>bear the burden of proof.
  
  He is correct in asserting that one cannot disprove the existence of God. In fact, it is an immutable logical precept that one cannot prove the non-existence of an entity - precisely because if an entity really doesn't exist then there would be no evidence to prove its non-existence! However, the opposite of this statement does not suffer from the same logical impasse. That is to say, it is possible to prove the existence of an entity. In fact, this is what the scientific method purports to excel at. Despite the logical possibility of proving entities, however, most theists make a much more modest claim, namely that their arguments constitute evidence for a creator rather than proof.
  
  What this means for the sceptic is the same as what any evidence means for the sceptic – they need to falsify the evidence if they are to be taken seriously. This entails wrestling with the arguments. Your correspondent has not done that here but instead is being dismissive in what seems to be an attempt to reprieve himself from having to formulate an answer. I'm guessing he would not accept that from you so why should you accept the same from him?
  
  ...continued

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 15th, 2011

• -continued
  
  >>I admit that there is no way to disprove a gods existence who >>started the big bang billions of years ago, BUT there is exactly >>the same logical reason to believe that aliens from a different >>dimension did it and the same reason logically to believe that this >>is a computer simulated reality, exactly the same evidence logical >>reason to think that green spotted unicorns created the universe. >>None of the above listed is any more proveable/disprovable than any >>other.
  
  This is just as ridiculous as it is naive. Again, the problem here harkens back to his poor understanding of the argument from the outset. He has made the very strong claim that there is "exactly the same logical reason" to believe in all manner of principal causes as there is in God. As such, this is a claim about identity and identity is a necessary relation. Can God then be equivocated with aliens, computer simulations or unicorns? Hardly! Each of the causes he has posited are themselves contingent entities which only pushes back his problem a step further. This means that his claim to identity is patently false. Moreover, we would need some form of evidence to warrant belief in his causes and we have none. But we do have evidence for God's existence.
  
  Ultimately, his case needs to get back to a necessarily existent entity too. What about a necessarily existent unicorn, I hear him say? A unicorn isn't a volitional cause so that won't do. What about a necessarily existent volitional unicorn? Such a creature doesn't have the power or understanding to bring about something from nothing. Ok, so what about a necessarily existent, volitional, omnipotent and omniscient unicorn then? Well, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet... Sounds like God to me.
  
  >>Just so you don't think I ignored your post completely, you >>said "Given that your correspondent believes that a creator is not >>modally necessary you should ask him what he thinks is. Whatever >>his answer he then needs to demonstrate the following:"
  >>>>And to that I respond; I do not claim to believe in things that can >>not be proved, and I know there are some things that are not >>explained. I do not feel compelled to fill in the gaps with >>superstitious guesses about gods that cant be proved.
  
  The late great physicist, Richard Feynman, is said to have scribbled on a blackboard, "What I cannot create I do not understand." Implicit in this statement is something that all of us intuitively recognise and one that is brought out in our day to day lives, namely that without sufficient comprehension the act of raw creation is unachievable. We rightly grant this as being a simple rational truth, so then how is it that a person can claim that nothing could be the cause of reality? Can nothing have sufficient comprehension of anything in order to bring about something? If an understanding intellect is a requisite for something new to be created then it follows logically that we should ascribe such an understanding to nothing itself. This conclusion is so absurd that no-one would rationally consent to it. Yet this is just what some atheists do when they argue that naturalism represents a better foundation for reality than God. Really then, who is making superstitious guesses now?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 15th, 2011

• To all, I do want to thank each and everyone of you for explaining where you are coming from. If there is no will on the part of a person to accept the Creator, then he has the option to accept chance evolution (necessity). I bid you good day. See you around AB.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 15th, 2011

• Plenty or words, but still you have scrupulously avoided providing evidence or even a viable refutation.
  Science 1, creationism 0, yet again.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 16th, 2011

• Nick:
  Your theologian buddy is still trying to prove a priori that God exists. A priori means he has no evidence, and all that's left for him is to create a god out of thin air using words.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 16th, 2011

• Your friend is attempting to demonstrate through a purely abstract mental exercise that a god is necessary for anything to be in existence. He claims there is some scientific underpinning to this claim but dodges providing physical evidence. In the absence of physical evidence the whole claim falls apart and we are left being asked to take it on faith.
  I made concessions to the effect that a god who created the big bang then vanished into the neither realms from whence he came can not be disproved. However this should be clarified further by stating unequivocally that the Christian god is not that god. Nor is any deity worshiped by any mainstream or historical religion. My statement should not be interpreted as an endorsement on the oft claimed un falsifiable nature of the abrahamic deity.
  
  I also reject the notion that a god is the only possible explanation for the big bang and all of existence. There is no reason to believe of expect that should be the case. Claiming god is the answer is a cheap cop out in the absence of a good explanation. Until a good explanation is found for things we do not understand its premature to assign causal mechanisms with certitude.
  
  In the end some scientific experiment may some day prove that there must have in fact been a god responsible for the inception of the universe, however that day has not come yet. Nor is it inevitable that it will be proved a god is necessarily responsible. History has several pertinent examples to teach us about the fate oft taken position.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 16th, 2011

• First off, I specifically told you I don't subscribe to "Creationism" as many Evangelicals believe. Go back and read what I wrote please. I do accept Scientific facts not hypothetical speculation and assumptions which I see so often.
  
  I have found that there are primarily two uses for the kinds of logical argument that are used to support God's existence. Firstly, they provide cumulative evidence that enables a person to rationally accept a transcendent creator. Secondly, but no less important, is that because they present logically sound conclusions they ultimately reveal the faith of the atheist that encounters them.
  
  I usually don't expect such arguments to change an atheist's mind, but I can certainly use them to expose the faith that inspires your worldview and the deep psychological crevasse that divides your personal convictions from honest inquiry.
  
  I respect your views but do not accept some of them. I know there are many that claim "their God" is the true One. What I have studied in the Bible has proven to me that Jehovah is the God who created all things and that he has already revealed himself to mankind and will do so next in a dramatic way. In the end, we will know, because even Jehovah Himself says, "Then they will know I am Jehovah." I know you resent that and perhaps will ridicule it but this will happen. You will see it.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 16th, 2011

• @nick- You are twisting reality until it fits your beliefs, that is not honest enquiry, it's delusory. People have been predicting things on the basis of biblical mythology from the moment it was written, people like Camping and Hovind.
  You have neither justified nor shown your point of view to be based on rational thought, quite the reverse.
  Ironically, I would at one point have accepted the concept of a deity, but the more I converse with theistic people, the more I am convinced that they are filling in gaps in their ignorance with ghosts and spirits, rather than learning about the universe, they claim to know it all and refuse to examine their own motivations.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 16th, 2011

• “Firstly, they provide cumulative evidence”
  
  There is no such evidence and I challenge you or anyone to provide any.
  
  “because they present logically sound conclusions”
  
  The explanation that “god done it” is a very convenient catch all that fills in the gaps for people eager to have answers to unanswerable questions. But since there is no evidence to verify those claims they are just articles of faith.
  
  “reveal the faith of the atheist”
  
  If I choose not to subscribe to the unverifiable claims of super beings whose existence can not be verified that is not a form of “faith”. Faith is the belief in things without evidence. Choosing not to believe in things without evidence seems to me to be almost the opposite of faith.
  
  “I usually don't expect such arguments to change an atheist's mind”
  
  What arguments? You haven’t provided one scrap of evidence for the existence of any god. I made your strongest argument for you by pointing out the last dark corner left in the universe for such a god to hide and claim responsibility for anything. A dark corner that will most likely someday have the veil lifted and its mysteries explained just as have all the other places previously ascribed to responsibilities of gods.
  
  “deep psychological crevasse that divides your personal convictions from honest inquiry”
  
  Since when is it a lack of “honest inquiry” to expect people making fantastical claims about super beings to provide proof for such claims? You should have looked in the mirror when you said that one because it would have been a lot more appropriate directed in your direction. Your own willingness to accept things such as gods without a scrap of evidence is a blatant example of your own personal convictions getting in the way of honest inquiry about the nature of reality.
  
  “Bible has proven to me”
  
  Well that seals the deal right there. Im so glad you said this because it shows your bias and unwillingness to be rational in filtering information according to logical principles. The bible said that god created the earth in a day or a few days, the earth wasn’t created by any god, we know exactly how the earth was made and there was no god involved. Same goes for the bibles explanation on the diversity of life on earth, completely wrong. So you claiming the bible proved anything to you when the bible is easily demonstrably wrong…
  
  Youre free to fill your head with whatever beliefs you wish. Seek out people who will share those beliefs with you and reassure one another that anyone who disagrees wont get to spend forever in your special club house. But when you bring those beliefs to the public forum don’t expect to have those baseless claims go unchallenged.
  
  And since you are a sub group of the larger Christian faith by virtue of your admission that Jehovah is your personal deity and Jesus Id like to stress to you the following short video as a parting gift.
  
  
  
  

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 16th, 2011

• As one of Jehovah's Witnesses, as I have repeatedly made known I am not a “creationist.” Why can't you get this? The Bible makes room for eons of time, whatever was required or transpired, for the layout of the physical heavens to be stretched out and the earth to be prepared for man’s habitation. The Hebrew word yohm, use in the Genesis account of creation, may mean a day of twenty-four hour duration, or thousands, millions, or billions of years in duration, depending on what period it is marking. (See Genesis 2:4, combining all previous "days" as one "day.")
  
  Whether it is a primal singularity of infinite density, an eternal foamy conglomerate of bubble multi-verses, or a stream of resonant quantum string overlays that have collided at a point, something had to be there for an eternal past, without a cause. Can one think of nothing being all there is?
  
  The propagation of theories such as this reveals that no one can. This is the drive behind the pursuit of a cosmological explanation for the existence of things. You just find yourselves Gerbilistically running within a wheel of explanation and rationalization.
  
  Each existing previous cause must have another existing cause previous to it, and so on. On the other hand, some (fewer) Cosmologists extend the explanatory gloss to us that energy is ex nihilio (from nothing) because they observe from time to time an inexplicable appearance of “primary” particles out of what they attribute as “nothing”, or out of nowhere. But this goes against the postulate “ex nihilio nihil fit” (nothing comes from nothing), so the mind seeks to find a comfortable place where a steady eternal stream of causes must be the reality behind existence; from neighboring dimensions, to ... etc.
  
  Atheists wag their heads in disbelief at those believing in an intelligent, everlasting Creator who designed and implemented the order of what we observe because we posit the Bible-revealed truth that Jehovah has always been. “Who made him?” is their repose.
  
  Well, might we also ask you, “What caused the multiverses’ existence (and so on and so forth)?” There is no difference in the process of necessary contingencies of a non-creatorship of all things and a Creator of same: there must have been something there for an eternity.
  
  The eternality of the Creator is no dilemma for us. The buck stops there. The intelligence infused into creation is recognized by intelligent beings. Order reflects mathematics. The biological information within each life form reflects planning and a programming of the highest order (information saving and retrieval system, as well as built-in safeguards). The body-plans of each phyla (which are NOT within the DNA, the DNA just provides a list of materials needed and may implement the construction of some parts for the whole) is indicative of supreme levels of engineering.
  
  The energy within the known universe (whether closed or open) proceeds from somewhere, ex nihilio nihil fit. Christians willingly conclude that the source of all energy is God. Cosmologists in general are still seeking to theorize a source, but most realize it must (have) come from somewhere...
  
  With all respect I must offer: the one eating garbage should not look down upon one eating garbage. For sincere searchers of truth: are we not all seeking the answer?
  
  The dilemma is not for believers of an intelligent designer and creator to face, but for those who rest upon chance and long term, consistent increasing graduation of chance as the producer of an ordered universe consisting of galactic islands, et al, to say nothing of living things on this earth.
  
  ...continued

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 16th, 2011

• -continued
  
  Here is the dilemma that faces you: The Cambrian Explosion. The appearance of nearly all the phyla we see existing today without any the gradual intermediates or inter-phyla links (ancestral tree) in the Pre-Cambrian strata has not been answered by the Darwinian model. This meant that all the DNA information for cell construction and information for each and every phyla body plan (not in the DNA, but elsewhere) had to be there and implemented.
  
  The basic body plans of each phyla are the same today as was brought forth during the Cambrian Explosion, the same basic designs and functions found to be extant back then are extant today. The amount of genetic information required to go from simple celled sponges in the pre-Cambrian to the manifold appearance of creeping, crawling, swimming, mating, skills for hunting and use of defensive apparatus, with complex eyes, a skeletal system, nervous system (a brain), gastro-tract, reproduction systems, etc.; all that we still see today, boggles the mind to think that chance aggregate of chemicals-aminos and nucleotides et al-formed all these different phyla in a veritable blink of an eye from the single-celled sponges of the per-Cambrian to the Zoo of the Cambrian.
  
  I will not go into the specific and functional information within the DNA much, but this represents a far, far greater dilemma for atheistic Darwinists to face-still in connection with the Cambrian Explosion-but even if the explosion had not existed, even if there was a gradual production of creatures, the shear bulk of information, even yet growing exponentially as we speak, insofar as man coming to know of its depth, overwhelms any possibility of chance graduation of just one species. It surpasses it beyond a mind’s capability to grasp it. Check out Meyers, Wells, Axe, Steinberg, Nelsen interview, DVD Darwin’s Dilemma, Illustra Media. There is nothing more to say. We all know it. Let's watch and see how things turn out,...buckle up.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 16th, 2011

• “may mean a day of twenty-four hour duration, or thousands, millions, or billions of years in duration”
  
  If we are picking and choosing the definition of words then nothing can be said to be for certain from the bible. You can have it both ways, either the bible as it is the absolute truth or it is worthless as the paper its written on.
  
  “something had to be there” “You just find yourselves Gerbilistically running within a wheel of explanation and rationalization”
  
  And what that is we do not know. The difference is that I do not presume to know because im wise enough to see that there is no evidence to support any claim. If you’ve got some super secret Jehovah witness proof then by all means spill the beans and win yourself a Nobel prize and turn all of science on its ear. But you cant, and you wont, because youre in possession of no secret knowledge. You wrapped yourself in lovely words to blind yourself from the truth, that you don’t have any evidence to justify your life of submission to a god.
  
  “The intelligence infused into creation is recognized by intelligent beings.”
  
  Complexity is not proof of an intelligent creator. If there was any proof that anything had ever been intelligently created this wouldn’t be a debate. It would be in scientific journals as an undisputed fact and we would be quibbling about the nature of the unknown designer. But it isn’t published, isn’t proven, because there isn’t proof, there isn’t evidence. The smartest men in the world have looked for the proof and no one has found it.
  
  “Well, might we also ask you, “What caused the multiverses’ “
  
  You mischaracterize those who choose not to indulge in unsupportable delusions. Not everyone who rejects beliefs in gods based on a lack of evidence substitutes in some equally un provable explanation. Smart men are perfectly comfortable not needing to know the unknown while intelligently probing the mystery seeking the truth. By pretending you know the answer in advance then casting about for any scrap to justify your faith you do yourself a dis service because in that way your odds of reaching the truth are next to none. Even if you were confronted with the true nature of the universe youd reject it so long as it didn’t fit with your pre conceived notion. That’s the kind of closed mindedness that has been a mill stone around humanities neck since the dark ages when people were burned alive for suggesting the blasphemy that the earth wasn’t the center of the universe.
  
  “are we not all seeking the answer?”
  
  No, with all respect we are not. The difference is that you presume to know the answer and in your bias way search to verify your pre conceived notions. I do not presume to know, and look for the answers with humility.
  
  “The Cambrian Explosion”
  
  You are unfortunately wrong. The rate of evolution has been demonstrated by experiments in labs and observation of fossil records to be more than capable of producing the rapid diversification of the Cambrian explosion. Here is a short video to help you understand.
  
  
  
  “specific and functional information within the DNA”
  
  You seem to believe that billions of years of natural selection/ evolution can not account for the current form of the genetic information. I assure you that the pseudo scientists in youd dvds are noting but creationist appologeticists at complete odds with the entire scientific community. There is no short supply of such propaganda, after all the church takes in billions every year tax free and would be fools not to at least try to convince the weak minded that the science is wrong. And if you believe it then ive got an ocean front property in Arizona to sell you, and cigarettes don’t cause

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 16th, 2011

• cancer

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 16th, 2011

• Hello to all!!! :D
  
  I have had some problems with my computer for some time now, so I haven't been able to participate. I'll read through a bit and see what I've missed and perhaps contribute a few thoughts.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 16th, 2011

• Well, it seems the topic has deviated much. I wish I could participate but my computer really hates me and I REALLY hate my computer right now. I hope that I will join you guys soon.
  
  BTW, all the stuff you guys keep showing nick has been refuted or is a sort of pseudo-science you all keep claiming he and I are doing or have done. None of you have any evidence that fits anything plausible as far as arguments and evidence to support those arguments. At best you all seem to be relying on veiled insults and not so veiled insults for the bulk of your arguments.
  
  Why don't you guys stick to one topic and follow it until one side cannot refute the other with evidence or arguments? Try that...
  
  If my computer helps me out I'd love to stick to just one topic and really get into what the evidence actually suggest. I wanted to do this with each of you one on one but (and I could be wrong) it seems Mr. Natural only gets brave when other are around, gilapsy's only comebacks are youtube videos and pocket nutt... well.. I'm not sure what he does but chime in here and there.
  
  Any takers...? Or hey, put me on the spot with ONE topic.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 16th, 2011

• Fascinating debate. Here's my thoughts
  
  If scientists somehow created a new form of life in a laboratory and proved that abiogenesis was possible would they also be proving Intelligent Design was possible at the same time?
  
  Keep in mind they were controlling all aspects of the experiment and if it was not for their careful manipulation the experiment would fall apart.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 16th, 2011

• Scientists have made simple organic compounds, all that is lacking is the ability to infuse life into those compounds, but since nobody has yet been able to quantify what life actually is, it would be nigh on impossible to develop a process by which to show that abiogenesis is indeed verifiable.
  Creationism however, has yet to produce any new information whatsoever, nor has it produced one single scrap of evidence in favour of its proposed creator, were creationists able to do so, they might actually have an argument, as usual, proponents of creationism have failed to provide anything more than vague assertions based upon misinformation and willing ignorance.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 17th, 2011

• “all the stuff you guys keep showing nick has been refuted”
  
  Proof please, because I think you cant back that up with anything from any published scientific journal ala reputable source.
  
  “None of you have any evidence that fits anything plausible as far as arguments and evidence to support those arguments”
  
  What were we trying to prove? That evolution is happening? To that I say DNA and fossils. That god doesn’t exist? To that one id say the burden to prove your fantasy is real falls on your shoulders. Asking me to disprove your fantasy is like asking you to disprove a hypothetical claim I could make that a supreme flying spaghetti divine principle told me that you are actually aliens. It’s a cultural bias that you feel entitled to demand your culturally accepted fantasy be disproven instead of having to prove it before its believed.
  
  “refute the other with evidence or arguments”
  
  The fossil evidence hasn’t be disproven, neither has the genetic evidence. If you disagree then id like to see a published article in a scientific peer reviewed journal, otherwise youre just blowing smoke. And no one has yet materialized any evidence in any scientific peer reviewed journal to provide supporting the existence of a god. Again without such evidence its all just smoke and mirrors, claiming authority and demanding your fantasies be disproven.
  
  “gilapsy's only comebacks are youtube videos”
  
  Well some people like to see information presented in that way. It also saves time because having someone check out a ten min clip could save me ten pages of having to type the same information. You sound like an old man offended by the use of a telephone instead of sending a letter via snail mail.
  
  “proved that abiogenesis was possible would they also be proving Intelligent Design was possible”
  
  Yes, they are not mutually exclusive. You can arrange three rocks in a row and three rocks can end up in a row by natural chance. That you can arrange them in a row does not prove that all arrangements of three rocks in a row must be by intelligent design.
  
  Welcome back onemanopinion, sorry your computer is giving you trouble. I recently had to replace a mobo and psu so I know what a pain that can be. Thankfully my OS wasn’t lost in the mix otherwise that would have been a real headache.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 17th, 2011

• Sometimes I wish computers were designed by a higher intelligence.
  
  If scientists were able to create Frankenstein from chemicals and inanimate objects that otherwise would never come together in a natural settings would that not prove intelligent design?

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 17th, 2011

• “If scientists were able to create Frankenstein from chemicals and inanimate objects that otherwise would never come together in a natural settings would that not prove intelligent design?”
  
  All that would prove is that humans are capable of intelligently designing. Last I checked that wasn’t something anyone was questioning.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 17th, 2011

• gillaspy
  
  ''It’s a cultural bias that you feel entitled to demand your culturally accepted fantasy be disproven instead of having to prove it before its believed.''
  
  Perceptive, cogent and concise. I plan to steal it. LOL
  
  
  I've found some interesting reading on life origins. Are you familiar with the Mediocrity Principle?
  
  Wikipedia has two (or more) separate articles, both titled Abiogenesis. One is called "Simple English" Wikipedia. From the preface:
  
  ''This article is about the chemistry behind the origin of life. Non-scientific ideas how life arose on Earth can be found at creation myth, creationism, guided evolution."
  
  The article lists a few of the current directions of study and some of the major hypotheses of abiogenesis. "Abiogenesis - Simple Wikipedia." It includes an extensive list of references at the bottom.
  
  The second Wikipedia article has the same title, Abìogenesis, but it's in the regular part of Wikipedia, and it goes into detail describing specific compounds and molecules.
  
  On a related subject is a Timeline of Evolution. It puts terrestrial biological evolution into a chronological perspective, from the earliest life to the present. A potential downside is that a timeline becomes out of date as new discoveries are made and dating techniques improve. It appears that updates are being incorporated into this timeline.
  
  None of these articles attempts to prove anything. All are simply educational, for the layman (me).

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 18th, 2011

• Hey, I've got a question. What do you think of “buckeyballs”?
  
  I once read in Time magazine that they spin around a billion times a second!
  
  "This molecule," says IBM physicist Donald Bethune, "looks like something some genius engineer sat down and designed."
  
  Why would he say that?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 18th, 2011

• Correction, "buckyball."

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 18th, 2011

• What do I think? I found one in my cornflakes this morning. I'm writing an angry letter to the Kellogg company.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 18th, 2011

• About buckyballs, In a course I took called engineering materials the professor was adamant about the future applications of materials designed at the atomic level to benefit from the bonding crystal structure. You have probably heard of carbon nano tubes/fibers, they are pretty much the same concept. The ability to minimize point defects and mass produce on an industrial scale still limit the application at this current time.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 18th, 2011

• I think I saw buckyballs in an electronics store, not the best place to have magnets. Looks fun but way to expensive to buy and so easy to lose.
  
  What kind of experiment would it take to prove Intelligent Design is possible? What evidence would you accept?

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 19th, 2011

• Nobody would say I.D. is impossible. The problem is that somebody has to dream up an intelligent designer. No one has ever invited me to a meeting with the I.D. guy. Have you met him/her? As long as he/she remains invisible and silent, I can find no reason to believe that such a thing exists. Why do people who otherwise appear normal and rational believe that an all-powerful, invisible, speechless monster created the universe. It's just wacky. Their only "proof" is another question: "Well, then, who or what created the universe?"
  
  The only rational answer is "We don't know." Why fret over something we can't identify? People who speculate that a great invisible space monster kindly designed the universe justify their speculation by confessing that they don't know who or what else might have done it. Why not the Magic Buffalo? The Great Pumpkin? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?
  
  There are many things we can know, some by simple observation, others after years of investigation. Why fret over the things we DON'T know?
  
  When your only solution to a problem is to bring a god in to fix things, it's called deus ex machina. That's what I.D. is. it's a child's solution. It's not good enough.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 20th, 2011

• Just so, you cannot prove your 'intelligent designer' exists, you can't even provide any evidence, filling the gaps in your knowledge with a magical being won't answer your questions, exploring what we can see and detect is the only way forward, and that's science, not religion, and lets not forget, ID is creationism with the word 'god' taken out, that's not just any opinion, it's a well known, and frankly blindingly obvious, fact.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 20th, 2011

• ''exploring what we can see and detect is the only way forward, and that's science''
  
  Exactly. And the older I get the less I'm willing to tolerate the magical explanations. Many right-wingers are STILL trying to push Christian Creationism into public school curricula. They are like termites gnawing away at the foundation of a house. It's time to call in the fumigators.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 20th, 2011

• In otherwords, if God himself descended from heaven and told you that he created the universe and everything in it you would say "prove it?"

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 20th, 2011

• We would have to ask, otherwise how would we be able to know that he was really god? It could just be a dressed up airship or some kind of hologram.
  Belief without proof is barking at the Moon, lots of noise and no results.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 20th, 2011

• "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Arthur C. Clarke
  
  If someone did come down out of the sky this is what id be thinking

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 20th, 2011

• You'd also be trembling in awe and respect. I don't believe God would make such a pleasant home for us in such a perfect location in the universe, give us the senses to appreciate our lives and surroundings, and then abandon us to leave us on our own to ascertain why we exist. That is where the Bible comes in. It answers questions where Science doesn't go and quite frankly, cannot answer.
  
  What irks me is when I hear comments about the idea of a God or designer to be "imaginary" when really, as I am hearing, you don't really know and cannot safely say there is not one. True, the question would be then, who is this being? So it really is not wise to be so adamant and self-confident just because you "haven't personally seen God or met the designer" that this one does not exist.
  
  If we find a crude arrowhead we may never have met an Indian but we acknowledge intelligence behind it. When an IBM physicist examines the buckyball molecule he is speechless attributing what he is seeing to "something that looks like a genius engineer sat down and designed."
  
  Intelligence exists. All of our experience proves that intelligence does not come from unintelligence. Intelligence comes from intelligence. It is logical to conclude that the "force" that called the Universe in existence is an intelligent one.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 20th, 2011

• “I don't believe God would make such a pleasant home for us in such a perfect location in the universe”
  
  We exist here because here is where our type of life can exist. There are probably billions or trillions of planets very similar to ours out there in the universe. No god involved.
  
  “give us the senses to appreciate”
  
  We have the senses we do because we inherited them from our ancestors going back billions of years down the evolutionary tree. No god involved.
  
  “abandon us to leave us on our own”
  Theres no evidence any god is here or was ever here.
  
  “That is where the Bible comes in. It answers questions where Science doesn't go and quite frankly, cannot answer.”
  
  The bible… 2000 year old myths and oral traditions codified during the roman empire for the sake of social cohesion. You know that a few centuries ago “the bible” was the only way to explain the earths place in the universe? And that anyone who disagreed with the bible saying the earth was the center of the universe and that god moved the sun disk across the sky was likely to be burned alive? Death is scary, ill give you that one. But id rather go to the grave honestly than grasping on to fictional fantasies to make me feel better. There is nothing scientific about the bible, and no science in the bible.
  
  “What irks me is when I hear comments about the idea of a God or designer to be "imaginary"”
  
  I say that because there is absolutely no evidence that a god exists.
  
  “cannot safely say there is not one”
  
  That god whos existence I still wait on evidence for is not the god of the bible. That god, the god of the bible is not real, specific claims in the bible have been shown to be false. But a god whos only act of intervention in the universe was to activate the big bang can not at this time be completely ruled out. That is just the truth consistent with the facts at this time.
  
  “IBM physicist examines the buckyball molecule he is speechless”
  
  I am looking at my textbook called Materials Science and Engineering an introduction” by William D Callister Jr. Chapter three, “the structure of Crystalline solids”. This book goes into great depth about the predictable properties of different elements arranged in their naturally occurring crystal structures. Buckey balls are a rare but naturally occurring arrangement of the element they are composed of. Those types of crystal structures have fantastic properties but not supernatural properties or proof of a designer. Does a Diamond amaze you equally? A few centuries ago when people figured out that diamonds are carbon they were impressed then too. No god involved, sorry.
  
  “All of our experience proves that intelligence does not come from unintelligence”
  
  Amoeba are intelligent in the sense that they behave differently according to their environment. And on to more complex creatures they all display intelligence. What “intelligence” are you referring to? And we as humans did not come from any supernatural intervention, we know exactly where we came from thanks to the hard work of geneticists and anthropologists and archaeologists. Im looking at my textbook called “Human Evolution a very short introduction” by Bernard Wood published 2005. Page 16 “The only explanation for this connectedness that has withstood scientific scrutiny is evolution; the only mechanism for evolution that has withstood scientific scrutiny is natural selection.” I took that class at the University at Buffalo in Buffalo NY two years ago.
  
  “It is logical to conclude that the "force" that called the Universe in existence is an intelligent one.”
  
  It is not logical to conclude anything about that which we have no evidence (whatever preceded the big bang). Projecting onto that blank canvas your god to justify your life of worship and give yourself warm fuzzys about how special you are is not a logical exercise by any stretch of the imagination.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 20th, 2011

• @Nick-The vast majority of this planet is currently uninhabitable, being as it is desert, ocean or covered in snow and ice, the rest of the universe is even less hospitable.
  We are rapidly running out of land suitable for cultivation and are falling prey to more frequent and destructive natural disasters as a result of the expansion of the human population into disaster prone areas, and you think it's the perfect place to live?! Jog on!

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 20th, 2011

• 
  
  If God came down and told you that he created everything in a simple form and everything was programmed in DNA to evolve what would you say?

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 20th, 2011

• Id ask "why isnt there any evidence for you having done that?".

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 20th, 2011

• Pocketnut, you play down how unique and habitable our planet is even though there are more hazardous places to live we can still enjoy such places and the beauty of them as well. Think about the tilt/axis of this planet as well as the perfect distance (93 million miles away) from sun. The rotation of the planet, our days and nights we have are perfect for us and our vegetation. No vegetation, no food, no life. And is it only a coincidence that our planet is protected by two dynamic shields?
  
  Gillasy, Yes, we inherited our senses from our ancestors but where did they get them from? Your just not facing the facts of life around us. Could it be if you did you would feel accountable to our Creator and you don't like that?
  
  So the Buckyball doesn't really impress you. Something with that much energy (which scientists are trying to understand and figure out how to harness such energy in even smaller batteries) is mind boggling to me. Spins around a billion times a second! That just happened?
  
  The other day I went to a pond and watched the dragonflies. What grace and beauty! It is evident that dragonflies are the handiwork of an intelligent Master Designer. A sophisticated flying machine indeed!

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 20th, 2011

• “The rotation of the planet, our days and nights we have are perfect for us and our vegetation. No vegetation, no food, no life.”
  
  Is the planet perfect for the vegetation or is the vegetation perfectly adapted to the planet? Same goes for your dragonflies. Just because its very well adapted after billions of years of evolution doesn’t mean that its “intelligently designed”. And our senses… Yes we got them from our ancestors but that family inheritance goes back to the origin of life in an unbroken chain from you to the very first life, life that didn’t have our specialized cellular structures capable of informing us about the surrounding conditions.
  
  “Could it be if you did you would feel accountable to our Creator and you don't like that? “
  
  Its not like im in denial of the evidence… There is no evidence that there is or has ever been any god. I see no reason to bow down and worship a fiction that only exists in the minds of those who choose to indulge it. Theres plenty of good reasons to believe in god, to fit in to your local culture or family, to deal with a catastrophic tragedy you don’t have the skills to cope with any other way… But believing in god because it’s the logical conclusion after a careful examination of the evidence is not one of those reasons.
  
  “So the Buckyball doesn't really impress you”
  
  It doesn’t matter if im impressed, what matters is if theres any reason to believe that there is some kind of supernatural aspect involved and there is absolutely no evidence to suggest anything supernatural there. Point source energy is impressive… A buckey ball might make a nice battery but point source energy could get us out of this galaxy.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 20th, 2011

• As one of my favorite Aerosmith songs goes, "Dream on! Dream on!"
  
  You remind me of those who “exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created.” (Romans 1:21-23, 25)
  
  What about our atmosphere which contains the right proportions of gases that are absolutely essential for life. Some of those gases, by themselves, are deadly. But because air contains safe proportions of these gases, we can breathe them without harm.
  
  We know one of those gases is oxygen, making up 21 percent of the air we breathe. Without it, how long would we and animals live? We would die within minutes. But too much oxygen would endanger our existence. Why? Pure oxygen becomes toxic if breathed too long.
  
  In addition, the more oxygen there is, the more easily things burn. If there were too much oxygen in the atmosphere, combustible materials would become highly flammable. Fires would easily burst forth and would be difficult to control. Wisely, oxygen is diluted with other gases, especially nitrogen, which makes up 78 percent of the atmosphere. But nitrogen is much more than just a dilutant.
  
  During thunderstorms, millions of lightning bolts occur earth wide every day. This lightning causes some nitrogen to combine with oxygen. The compounds produced are carried to the earth by rain, and plants make use of them as fertilizer.
  
  Carbon dioxide makes up less than one percent of the atmosphere. What good is such a small amount? Without it, plant life would die. That small amount is what plants need to take in, giving off oxygen in return. Both us and animals breathe in the oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide.
  
  An increasing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would tend to be harmful to humans and animals. A decreasing percentage could not support plant life. What a marvelous, precise, self-sustaining cycle has been arranged for plant, animal and human life! You're dreaming to think this just happened. This is not a good logical conclusion.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 20th, 2011

• “What about our atmosphere which contains the right proportions of gases that are absolutely essential for life.”
  
  Or life is adapted perfectly by natural selection/evolution to exist in that atmosphere… Life exists in 400 degree water near geothermal vents miles under the ocean and is perfectly adapted there too…
  
  “What a marvelous, precise, self-sustaining cycle has been arranged for plant, animal and human life! “
  
  Just remembering here but I think the plants caused the air to have enough oxygen for animals to start breathing it and the two have been balancing each other ever since… Well they would except that we are plowing under a football field of forest every few seconds so that delicate balance is totally being screwed over thanks to profit hungry short sighted end times believing morons…
  
  The bottom line is that as complex and interesting as the world is there is nothing about it that came to be by the intervention of anything supernatural. Natural understood physical processes account for it all so any talk of “an obvious creators hand” is just fallacious.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 21st, 2011

• @Nick
  
  ''...you play down how unique and habitable our planet is even though there are more hazardous places to live we can still enjoy such places and the beauty of them as well. Think about the tilt/axis of this planet as well as the perfect distance (93 million miles away) from [the] sun. The rotation of the planet, our days and nights we have are perfect for us and our vegetation''
  
  It is precisely for those reasons that life (as we know it) has evolved on this planet.
  
  If the earth were too close to the sun or too far away, human life would never have evolved here. We wouldn't be having this conversation. Eventually we may find other planets with environments similar to our own. If so, we may find life on those planets.
  
  We may also find other life forms, that flourish in conditions that would kill us. And we have already found such life forms. They're called extremophiles. You can find examples like this one at the link:
  
  ''Acid-loving extremophiles prefer environments where the pH is below pH=5, while alkaline-loving bacteria require pHs above pH=9. Thriving populations of acid-loving bacteria have been isolated in the runoff from acidic mine drainage, where the pH is below one, which is more acidic than the contents of the stomach.''
  
  I've been wondering what these extremophiles might talk about, if only they could talk, and we had a tiny microphone to listen in, and they had an IQ > 0.01.
  
  Wait--I'm picking something up now:
  
  ''You know, Blorg, it can't be an accident that we find ourselves living happily in this sweet boiling acid with the perfect chemical content that we need for subsistence. What more evidence could anybody ask for to prove the existence of an intelligent designer?"
  
  ''I agree, Fuurg. If things were just a little different--if we found ourselves on the planet's sunlit surface, in an oxygen-rich atmosphere, we'd be dead in a second. Only a loving god could have created this hot, slimy, acidic goo and place us here. We can't see him, so he's obviously an all-powerful spirit. Let's get everybody together and worship him. Is your sister still a virgin? We can sacrifice her.''
  
  The bacteria colony pray together:
  ''O thou Great Bacterium in the upper layer,
  Give us this day the boiling acid we need for life.''

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 21st, 2011

• @Nick- You're attributing the effect to an unsubstantiated cause, you have yet to provide anything but assertions and rhetoric, no evidence, just what you believe and only that, and you twist the facts to fit your ideas.
  There is less habitable space on this planet than uninhabitable, yet you seem to think it was made entirely for our benefit, yet it cannot support our burgeoning population, as evidenced by the millions of people who live on the edge of starvation in slums and disaster prone areas. We are a species that clings to the surface of a fragile rock that has found itself ideally placed to support life, not one that was specifically placed here by a being we cannot detect by any means at all.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 21st, 2011

• Actually there is no food supply problem what we have is a food distribution problem. Up to 1/3 of all food produced is wasted

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 21st, 2011

• The human population is growing rapidly, we will be unable to sustain adequate levels of food production in the future.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 21st, 2011

• No need to worry Pocketnut, If God can create life on earth he can sustain it. The Bible promises even the deserts will blossom.
  
  When I hear expressions like, "The bottom line is that as complex and interesting as the world is there is nothing about it that came to be by the intervention of anything supernatural."
  
  The bottom line is this is just your guess. You don't really know do you?
  
  Could I ask Gillaspy to define who these ones are? "...to delicate balance is totally being screwed over thanks to profit hungry short sighted end times believing morons."
  
  Thanks.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 21st, 2011

• Oh well that's alright then, the fantasy being you can offer no evidence for will suddenly transform deserts into farms and we'll all live happily together on a bountiful Earth, until we're all standing shoulder to shoulder and can't move to eat.
  You're right, I don't know for absolute certain, but all the evidence points to there being no god whatsoever, replacing 'I don't know' with 'god' is, as pointed out earlier, more than a little silly, let's face it, you don't really know there is a god, cannot provide evidence, yet are convinced that he will provide for a population that has at least doubled in the last century.
  You can look up population growth easily, you can't look up evidence for god, because there isn't any.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on June 21st, 2011

• Dont worry little jimmy it doesnt matter that we drained all the aquifers we need to feed ourselves and leveled the forests that regulate the atmosphere because "god" will wisk us believers up to heaven once were done making life for ourselves on earth unsustainable...

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 21st, 2011

• The Bible says we are to be stewards of the earth. Right now we are not doing so good...

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 21st, 2011

• @Nick
  
  I'm trying to learn what you really believe, if you're willing to divulge. You said,
  
  ''If God can create life on earth he can sustain it. The Bible promises even the deserts will blossom.''
  
  1. What if God did NOT create life on earth? More precisely, what if there is no god? Have you ever considered this possibility? [You have asked us to consider the possibility that there IS a god]
  
  2. Every major faith has its own Holy Scripture. Why do you put so much trust in your bible? How do you rationalize citing your bible as a reliable source? Can you honestly say that you have never encountered errors or contradictions in your bible? (I believe that if you were being questioned by a licensed polygraph examiner you would fess up and retract some of your claims.)
  
  3. a) Throughout history, various phenomena have been believed to be supernaturally caused. Later, the same phenomena have been shown to have natural causes. Are you confident that we will never find natural causes for the phenomena you believe to have supernatural origins?
  
  b) Will you continue to claim supernatural intervention when the natural causes have been found (as some believers do for biological evolution)?

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 21st, 2011

• God says He is going to "ruin those who are ruining the earth." Greedy man has mismanaged things but it doesn't mean God cannot undo it. As you know this planet is resilient. Plus, "God will make all things new." (Revelation 21:5)
  
  To answer the questions above.
  
  1) Of course, I have considered the possibility that there is no God and after weighing the evidence believe it is an impossibility for all of this just to have happened without being directed by a Supreme intelligence.
  
  2) True, any book can claim to be from God or "Holy." My investigation thus far have proved the Bible to be the most reliable in many ways. History, archaeology, prophecy, candor, etc.. I have encountered what appears to be a discrepancy or contradiction but once I did a more thorough research I always found a satisfying, more complete answer. Your polygraph comment has no weight at all. All you have is your opinion.
  
  3) Yes, there are many things that seem miraculous or supernatural that can be rationally explained. You have no argument here. I'm also with you that many "phenomena" that is supposed produced by God is not genuinely from God. However, I do not underestimate God's spirit in being able to accomplish what we would call supernatural. It does not surprise me that God can exercise influence in all areas of human experience and over all forms of matter. If we could, for instance, understand how God created the parting of the red sea (perhaps through magnetism) all that would tell us is that he tapped in the invisible forces he established but he manipulated them to accomplish his purpose. God would still get credit for causing such an event to occur at the right time.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 21st, 2011

• "b) Will you continue to claim supernatural intervention when the natural causes have been found (as some believers do for biological evolution)?"
  
  Will you do the converse if 20 years from now scientists are still scratching their heads trying to figure out how it all started?

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 21st, 2011

• Scientists will always be "scratching their heads," researching and learning new things. Learning is their job, their love, their purpose in life.
  
  ''...how it all started?"
  
  Can you be more specific? What do you expect to happen in the next 20 years, other than more candles on your birthday cake?

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 21st, 2011

• I respect everyones right to believe whatever they want. I might think that other peoples beliefs are rediculous but thats one of the great things about america right? Heck, at least my head isnt on the chopping block for having the gall to challenge what i see as the sacred myth. Things like you can lead a horse to water and dont waste pearls on swine come to mind, but i dont doubt others have thought that way about me too.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 21st, 2011

• For once we agree, this is America and people are free to believe in whatever they want. Personally I think those who are atheist or believe it all started randomly have more faith than the religious faithful do.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 21st, 2011

• Nick:
  
  I've added some stuff.
  
  Thanks for at least attempting to answer my questions.
  
  You didn't say if you would answer my questions differently if you were connected to a polygraph. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings, just encouraging you to give thoughtful, honest answers. It appears to me that if your answers were being scrutinized, you wouldn't toss them off so glibly. They seem to be coming from superficial memory, like reciting the alphabet, and not from the reasoning part of your brain.
  
  ''after weighing the evidence [I] believe....''
  
  This us what we've been waiting for! What evidence did you weigh?

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 21st, 2011

• It's everywhere around you but you have to be willing to admit intelligence not accident. Look down at your hands. What a wonderful living tool. The mobility is one thing and the amazing complexity of nerve cells is too incredible. You attribute it to "chance" not me. Life is more than an assortment of chemical elements. Rather, it is based on an extremely sophisticated form of information which is encoded in DNA. I don't believe accidents produce complex information, or as many of you like to call it "natural selection." If you want to think that, fine. I just can't accept it.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 21st, 2011

• ''Look down at your hands. What a wonderful living tool....the amazing complexity of nerve cells is too incredible.''
  
  Quite right. And do you imagine that early humans had the same complex hands that we have? Are you aware that the human hand (like every other part of the human body) has evolved over millennia?
  
  Here are some Google hits showing scholarly papers, all studies of the evolution of the human hand.
  
  Here's a less technical article, from the National Library of Medicine.
  
  Just scan the abstract, if you like. Remember, you won't find any of this in your bible.
  
  What a wonderful living tool the hand has become. But it didn't start that way.
  

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 21st, 2011

• Nick, I've noticed (as have PocketNut and Gillaspy) that when you contrast your religious beliefs and bible verses with genuine scientific knowledge, you betray serious misunderstandings of the science. Your anachronistic beliefs may have satisfied incurious denizens of the dark ages, but they simply can't stand up in the light of scientific observations of the last few centuries.
  
  Consequently, your science vs. faith comparisons have been invalid. I don't know if you have deliberately misrepresented the science or if your errors are the result of simple ignorance, but even after one of us has explained the science to you, you continue to repeat the same error.
  
  My question to you: Do you deliberately misrepresent the science in an attempt to make your religious beliefs seem plausible?
  
  Alternative question: do you deliberately misrepresent the science b/c you fear that if you made an effort to understand it better your eyes would be opened and you would see immediately that your primitive beliefs cannot possibly stand up to scrutiny in a world of educated folks who DO understand the science?

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 22nd, 2011

• OK I'm back... I think. I can barely see the letters now but hey, whatever.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 22nd, 2011

• Mr. Natural
  
  Mr. Natural says to Nick, "Your anachronistic beliefs may have satisfied incurious denizens of the dark ages, but they simply can't stand up in the light of scientific observations of the last few centuries."
  
  Umm... Nick is pointing to what appears to him as design... You are saying it is not... How is it that science has now disproved design arguments (or shows design is unlikely)to the point where you feel his arguments are convincing in the absence of science but not in the presence of science?
  
  Your assessment does not follow Mr. Natural. You point to primitive beliefs but fail to understand primitive is only in time not sophistication or essence or what led to the questions. You can make an argument for primitive in understanding of certain processes we call science, sure. However, the coming into existence has been at the heart of these questions and issues. As well as, Who we are?, how did we get here?, and questions like this.
  
  Our human intellect and curiosity is what leads to these questions. You are offering nothing in the way of explaining these questions. In fact, it appears you are doing exactly what you accuse Nick of doing, you are offering anachronistic beliefs. Everything you and the others have offered in support of evolutions and abiogenesis
  are events that are, statistically impossible and hence implausible.
  
  You have a bunch of maybe's but not not much science when those maybe's are confronted.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 22nd, 2011

• “You are saying it is not... How is it that science has now disproved design arguments (or shows design is unlikely)to the point where you feel his arguments are convincing in the absence of science but not in the presence of science?”
  
  We know exactly where humans came from thanks to the hard work of geneticists and anthropologists and archaeologists. Im looking at my textbook called “Human Evolution a very short introduction” by Bernard Wood published 2005. Page 16 “The only explanation for this connectedness that has withstood scientific scrutiny is evolution; the only mechanism for evolution that has withstood scientific scrutiny is natural selection.” I took that class at the University at Buffalo in Buffalo NY two years ago.
  
  Last night while talking to my wife about this conversation I realized that nick and onemanopinion are not genuine seekers of the truth. There are very interesting revelations about the nature of reality that come from quantum mechanical theory and relativity theory, some of which echo certain aspects of certain religious tenants. I even recommended a book called “the physics of consciousness” and a video called “what the bleep do we know” that genuinely attempt to connect the truth of our spiritual nature to hard science. Unfortunately it seems like you guys already decided what god is and are simply looking to justify it and tear down or ignore anything that contradicts your pre conceived notions.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 22nd, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "We know exactly where humans came from thanks to the hard work of geneticists and anthropologists and archaeologists. Im looking at my textbook called “Human Evolution a very short introduction” by Bernard Wood published 2005. Page 16 “The only explanation for this connectedness that has withstood scientific scrutiny is evolution; the only mechanism for evolution that has withstood scientific scrutiny is natural selection.” I took that class at the University at Buffalo in Buffalo NY two years ago."
  
  Did you catch that? Here it is again, "“The only explanation for this connectedness that has withstood scientific scrutiny is evolution; the only mechanism for evolution that has withstood scientific scrutiny is natural selection.”
  
  Did you catch it this time? Here it is "the only mechanism for evolution that has withstood scientific scrutiny is natural selection.”
  
  Sorry, but that is not evolution. It is not the mechanism, its part of the mechanism. One, which BTW, we are not arguing against. Its the mutations aspect of the theory that makes evolution, evolution, or else all you have is variation within a kind which fits perfectly with ID.
  
  Quote, "Last night while talking to my wife about this conversation I realized that nick and onemanopinion are not genuine seekers of the truth."
  
  Why, because they don't agree with you? We can say the same of you and your associates. It doesn't get anyone anywhere. Stick to the evidence and plausible arguments and we then make that statement. Or else you are just spouting your opinion.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 22nd, 2011

• Mr Natural
  
  Quote, "Quite right. And do you imagine that early humans had the same complex hands that we have? Are you aware that the human hand (like every other part of the human body) has evolved over millennia?
  
  Here are some Google hits showing scholarly papers, all studies of the evolution of the human hand."
  
  This is exactly the lazy attitude supporters of evolutionary theory keep tossing, like a monkey tossing dung at a wall in hopes it will stick... I'm not trying to hurt your feelings here Mr. Natural but you have to do much better than that if you want to appear as if you know what you are talking about.
  
  I clicked on the very first article on your link and it starts like this "It has been proposed that the hominid lineage began when a group of chimpanzee-like apes began to throw rocks and swing clubs at adversaries, and that this behaviour yielded reproductive advantages for millions of years, driving natural selection for improved throwing and clubbing prowess."
  
  That is the standard answer in a can from supporters of evolution. It goes like this, "It has been proposed that the hominid lineage began when a group of chimpanzee-like apes began (insert behavior, trait or whatever that explains whatever is in question HERE), and that this behaviour yielded reproductive advantages for millions of years, driving natural selection for improved (insert circular argument HERE).
  
  All of these free passes if you support evolution but not if you don't believe in evolution. Oh, we better not do it but its OK for supporters of evolution do it. Forget plausible arguments and evidence, as long as you have a few bones (the evidence that allows make believe so long as no one questions it) and a variety of fallacious arguments that ignore a mechanism is needed to show how information via mutations translates into something it could not already and you are in the club... We need real arguments that are consistent with the evidence, and if you didn't know, that means they have to be plausible, which means they need to be somewhat logical... somewhat. :D
  
  I am not asking for strict deductive logic here. At the same time you need to use logic, you can't just make it up or cite sources that make up the rules as they go along with the same "answers in a can."

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 22nd, 2011

• This from one mans opinion on another thread moved to consolidate discussion
  “he as well as I have offered evidence of Gods existence”
  
  Such as? Let me guess, debunked intelligent design? Please, I can and have ripped apart intelligent design debunking it for the pseudo science soft cover for creationism that it is. The only thing that explains how humans are here and withstands scientific scrutiny is evolution, and the only mechanism to explain how evolution works that withstands scientific scrutiny is natural selection. See my above post for direct quote from textbook. If Im making a straw man argument because you have other evidence lets see your peer reviewed articles from some scientific journals, you know, credible sources.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 22nd, 2011

• BTW Mr. Natural, did you read any of the "scholarly" papers you cited or just perform a search and post the link?
  
  I read the first one on the link you gave and guess what, the only evidence that can be called evidence was a few bones. I think you and others seem to think some well preserved skeleton is lying there and scientist make judgements based on that. Maybe you don't but that is what it looks like.
  
  Anyway, you argument is circular. You can't assume evolution happened and if that is what is being challenged. In other words you can't say, "What a wonderful living tool the hand has become. But it didn't start that way" when you don't address the mechanism.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 22nd, 2011

• Quote, "This from one mans opinion on another thread moved to consolidate discussion
  “he as well as I have offered evidence of Gods existence"
  
  Ummm I believe I said that and I am NOS not OMO.
  
  Quote, "Please, I can and have ripped apart intelligent design debunking it for the pseudo science soft cover for creationism that it is."
  
  Uh-no... You have shared irrelevant youtube videos and offered pseudo-science based arguments yourself. Don't give yourself that much credit, it makes you look silly.
  
  Quote, "The only thing that explains how humans are here and withstands scientific scrutiny is evolution, and the only mechanism to explain how evolution works that withstands scientific scrutiny is natural selection. See my above post for direct quote from textbook. If Im making a straw man argument because you have other evidence lets see your peer reviewed articles from some scientific journals, you know, credible sources."
  
  You don't understand what you just quoted. It supports what WE have been saying NOT YOU. GET it? Read it slowly, the mechanism that evolution needs, mutations that is, has not, I repeat, NOT stood up to scientific scrutiny. The only aspect of the theory is natural selection which no one on here, not I not nick not you not anyone is disputing as existing.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 22nd, 2011

• Quote, "This from one mans opinion on another thread moved to consolidate discussion
  “he as well as I have offered evidence of Gods existence"
  
  Ummm I believe I said that and I am NOS not OMO.
  
  Quote, "Please, I can and have ripped apart intelligent design debunking it for the pseudo science soft cover for creationism that it is."
  
  Uh-no... You have shared irrelevant youtube videos and offered pseudo-science based arguments yourself. Don't give yourself that much credit, it makes you look silly.
  
  Quote, "The only thing that explains how humans are here and withstands scientific scrutiny is evolution, and the only mechanism to explain how evolution works that withstands scientific scrutiny is natural selection. See my above post for direct quote from textbook. If Im making a straw man argument because you have other evidence lets see your peer reviewed articles from some scientific journals, you know, credible sources."
  
  You don't understand what you just quoted. It supports what WE have been saying NOT YOU. GET it? Read it slowly, the mechanism that evolution needs, mutations that is, has not, I repeat, NOT stood up to scientific scrutiny. The only aspect of the theory is natural selection which no one on here, not I not nick not you not anyone is disputing as existing.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 22nd, 2011

• “Sorry, but that is not evolution. It is not the mechanism, its part of the mechanism. One, which BTW, we are not arguing against. Its the mutations aspect of the theory that makes evolution, evolution, or else all you have is variation within a kind which fits perfectly with ID.”
  
  For the love of Pete… The book is called “Human Evolution a brief introduction”. Its taught by a doctor at the university level at a highly respected college. There is no controversy and it’s a slap in the face to real scientists to even continue to indulge youre position now that you’ve been provided ample evidence of the truth. Like I said last night you can believe what you want but to myself and serious minded people youre willfully ignorant.
  
  “Or else you are just spouting your opinion.”
  My “opinion” on your attitude is based on this observation. It seems like you guys already decided what god is and are simply looking to justify it and tear down or ignore anything that contradicts your pre conceived notions.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 22nd, 2011

• Quote, "For the love of Pete… The book is called “Human Evolution a brief introduction”. Its taught by a doctor at the university level at a highly respected college. There is no controversy and it’s a slap in the face to real scientists to even continue to indulge youre position now that you’ve been provided ample evidence of the truth. Like I said last night you can believe what you want but to myself and serious minded people youre willfully ignorant."
  
  Again, as usual, fallacious calls to authority, lazy responses and ignoring the other sides arguments. I don't want your opinion I want your reasoning. Provide it already.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 22nd, 2011

• Gotta go for now. I look forward to some slightly logical response from any of you... I hope. :D

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 22nd, 2011

• “fallacious calls to authority, lazy responses and ignoring the other sides arguments.”
  
  Oh Im sorry does my quoting an actual textbook from an actual university count as a “call to authority”? Guilty as charged. Ive put tens of hours or more into this conversation, quoted you dozens of reliable reputable sources, calling my lazy is as out of touch with reality as the rest of your positions. And what other side of the argument? You haven’t come up with a single reputable source to support any of your claims about intelligent design or creationism or the existence of a god. This isn’t even an argument anymore because one side did the work and supported their position with actual evidence and the other side did a song and dance while creatively trying to hide the fact that all they had were opinions smoke and mirrors.
  
  I am the one who will be looking forward to an intelligent logical response.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 22nd, 2011

• http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_18
  
  Do yourself a favor and understand the current state of understanding on the subject. This is from Berkeley, i assume you know what Berkeley is and if that isnt a reputable enough source for you then nothing will ever be.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 22nd, 2011

• I read the sources recently submitted regarding 'the hand.' As NOS points out it just made some unproven assumptions. The core assumption is that we have derived or evolved over time from ape-like ancestors. Using that assumption as a base line one can argue that the simian hand over time developed into ours. Your strength sits on the pile of credentialed people who believe this philosophical view they call "scientific."
  
  That pile of credentialed people in turn sit on a thin layer of unconnected data which they have molded into a fashionable philosophy. But, I think it should be acknowledged that biological variation within the "kind"--which is too often used as "proof" of evolution--certainly applies to human hands even today. There are narrow hands, wide hands, fat fingered hands, thin fingered hands, thickly haired hands, sparsely haired hands, brown hands, white hands, etc... Have an appointment to catch. I'll check in later.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 22nd, 2011

• Nick said
  "its to complicated for me to understand without actually trying so instead ill just assume my magical invisible friend who thinks im super special did it."
  
  ...puts face in palm...
  
  Seriously who cares that they have actual evidence and actual research to back up the evolution side. Who cares that theres decades, even centuries of supporting evidence. Since its too complicated and clashes with my 2000 year old fairy tale book ill just opt to ignore it and go on believing whatever makes me happy.
  
  No wonder our kids are so far behind in science compared to the rest of the developed world. With adults setting that kind of example why should they bother to try.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 22nd, 2011

• And about the existence of a god. That is a complicated long conversation to really explain. A very good argument is here, its philosophical so NOS and nick youll both like it since you both seem to think that philosophy and logic prove your points.
  
  

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 22nd, 2011

• @NOS
  ''you have to do much better than that if you want to appear as if you know what you are talking about.''
  
  LOL! You're more concerned with appearances than with substance. So far, neither you nor Nick has posted any evidence whatsoever that supports your wacky beliefs--not even "a few bones," as you sneered above.
  
  ''the only evidence that can be called evidence was a few bones. I think you and others seem to think some well preserved skeleton is lying there and scientist make judgements based on that.''
  
  That, my dear boy, is how evidence is collected, a few bones at a time. You Won't find a complete skeleton, pristine and perfect, lying on the grass, waiting for you to collect it and study it. A few bones is the most you can find. Are you just pretending to be so ignorant of paleontology? Have you EVER studied this subject, either in the field or in a classroom? Did you drop out of school to help pa corral the turkeys and milk the chickens on the farm? You do a lot of huffing and puffing, but all you've produced is froth and barm.
  
  Here is what you need to do, Nick and NOS:
  
  1. STATE YOUR BELIEFS up front. Yes, I know, you'll feel embarrassed to admit your beliefs publicly, but you need to perform this important first step so we'll all know just what you hope to prove. (Do you even know what you are trying to prove?)
  
  2. Present your evidence, even if all you have is "a few bones" (and you don't even have that). Maybe you have a lock of Jesus's hair that we can examine. A shred of the Shroud of Turin, showing the face of Jesus imprinted in the fabric? A splinter of wood from the Holy Cross? A rock fragment containing a letter or two from the original 10 Commandments?
  
  Summary:
  State your beliefs.
  Present your evidence.
  
  is that asking too much?

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 22nd, 2011

• Don't you people have jobs? I check my computer today and see like 20 postings

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 22nd, 2011

• @Gillaspy
  
  Your video, ''There are No Gods,'' uses pure logic and a few biblical quotations to dispel any notion of a god. Too bad Nick and NOS are unlikely to watch it. It doesn't support their entrenched beliefs (which they still have neither admitted nor supported). And so they must exclude genuine learning from their fragile minds, lest they be persuaded to abandon their wacky beliefs and seek empirical knowledge and secular wisdom.
  
  See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil...., delightfully illustrated at the link:
  
  http://www.biotechnics.org/olga_seenoevil one98.jpg
  (Oops: Remote linking forbidden)
  
  I'll try this instead.
  
  I've watched parts 1 and 2 so far. I see other videos on the side that appear to be by the same guy. Haven't checked them yet.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 22nd, 2011

• I asked a Professor about our hands and he had this to say today:
  
  Definitely human hands as well as feet are unique in their abilities and construction. As in other animals and plants, the human body parts have been created to fulfill demands of particular "creature" and not vice versa, being progressively developed under the environmental selection pressure. Physiologically, biochemically, and morphologically they are similar to certain extent to animal ones and I believe that clever (and wise) Designer will never change the well functioning systems proven in His previous projects (animals).
  
  That’s why we can test new drugs or toxins on model animals in the laboratory, but not always. There is Professor Antonin Holy in Czech Academy who synthesized some anti-virotics working well in veterinary and human medicine (Viread). But one of his very promising new drug against cancer of soft tissues was active in dogs but completely failed in clinical tests on human patients and the whole project was cancelled by an investor, US company Gilead.
  
  I found one nice article (attached); http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v13/i1/handsfeet.asp -about hands and feet by recognized embryologist who wrote it for some creationist magazine years ago. Despite where and when it has been published I could endorse his conclusions even now.
  
  By the way, hands and feet have extremely great projection areas in brain sensory and motor cortex (together with another unique parts, human tongue and mimic muscles) you never find in apes or other animals. So these brain areas had have to appear SIMULTANEOUSLY in first humans and not developed by unproven co-evolution as generally believed by scholars.
  
  Frank (Frantisek Vyskocil)
  Prof. Dr. F. Vyskočil, DrSc.
  Member of the Learned Society CZ,
  Member of the Royal Physiological Society
  London, Cambridge
  Institute of Physiology AVČR
  Faculty of Natural Sciences Charles University
  Prague

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 22nd, 2011

• I remember learning about Haeckel's embryos in school not too long ago. Sad how it appeared in high school when everyone knew it was fake in the 1800's.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 22nd, 2011

• Nick:
  As long as you keep searching creationist sites and talking to creationist professors, creationist explanations is what you'll get. They, like you, filter out what doesn't support their beliefs and rationalize the rest, so it sounds reasonable, as long as you don't look too closely.
  
  BTW, you still haven't posted your beliefs. Do you believe that an archetypal couple were lowered gently from heaven to the earth, fully-formed and ready for a suit, tie, and high-heeled shoes?
  
  If you want to learn how we really came to be what we are today, you'll have to study science--not a Bible.
  
  OMO
  You didn't bother to cite a source, so I'm guessing you just made it up.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 22nd, 2011

• http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/17rec03.htm
  
  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/277/5331/1435.1.summary
  
  http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/haeckels_embryos.htm
  
  http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/05/the_textbooks_dont_lie_haeckel_1003664.html
  
  There are over 67,300 hits on Google. But wait, they could all be lying of course!
  
  So lets try Google images:
  
  http://www.bible.ca/tracks/haeckel-truth-lie-embryology-photos.jpg
  
  Are you satisfied?

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 23rd, 2011

• That's better. This caught my eye:
  
  ''Haeckel once admitted to his peers that he doctored the drawings, but that confession was forgotten.''
  
  It looks like everybody, on both sides of the issue, forgot all about the confession. We can be sure if the creationists had remembered the confession, they would have brought it up long before this.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 23rd, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "Oh Im sorry does my quoting an actual textbook from an actual university count as a “call to authority”? Guilty as charged."
  
  Nope. Thats not the issue. You can quote all day long if you'd like. BUT (and this is a big BUT) you have to make an argument since what we are disputing are the merits of evolution, NOT whether or not people believe it.
  
  Quote, "Ive put tens of hours or more into this conversation,"
  
  Really? And the best you have offered is youtube videos as your rebuttals? Please, you are not fooling anyone. And I'll tell ya what, if you put tens of hours and thats the best you got I wouldn't brag about that.
  
  Quote, "quoted you dozens of reliable reputable sources, calling my lazy is as out of touch with reality as the rest of your positions."
  
  Quotes don't mean much unless they actually support what you are trying to show/prove. However, you last quote actually helps us out and not you. I suggest you think carefully before you quote things, they may prove detrimental to your arguments as the last one proved to be. And thanks for that quote BTW. I'll be sure and use it at another time. :D
  
  Quote, "And what other side of the argument?"
  
  OH, ya know, that whole logic and plausible thing we keep mentioning to you. Ya think you can add some of that to any of your responses?
  
  Quote, "You haven’t come up with a single reputable source to support any of your claims about intelligent design or creationism or the existence of a god."
  
  And you haven't come up with a single reputable source that shows a mechanism for what you strongly assert happens, evolution. And BTW, we are not creationist. How many times do we have to tell you this? As for ID, we have offered evidence that suggest design in DNA and how none of the laws account for the arrangement of information. You don't need a peer reviewed paper to make that argument.
  
  Quote, "I am the one who will be looking forward to an intelligent logical response."
  
  I don't think you have enough grasp of logic to know it when its right in front of you...
  
  Evidence is your Berkley link... It shows what I've been saying for the last year or so, to you and Hominan, that mutations are the part that is crucial to evolution to stand as a theory apart from ID. Yet, you never address it, you side step it, show irrelevant youtube videos and not much else.
  
  Mutations, mutations, mutations, why have you side stepped this area over and over. You need to provide an argument not just give a definition. We all know this is HOW its supposed to work, the issue is what evidence do you or anyone have for supporting this theory.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 23rd, 2011

• gilaspy says to nick" Seriously who cares that they have actual evidence and actual research to back up the evolution side. Who cares that theres decades, even centuries of supporting evidence. Since its too complicated and clashes with my 2000 year old fairy tale book ill just opt to ignore it and go on believing whatever makes me happy.
  
  No wonder our kids are so far behind in science compared to the rest of the developed world. With adults setting that kind of example why should they bother to try."
  
  Are you kidding me? Do you realize what has been going on the past 2 or 3 years as far as the validity of the arguments in favor of evolution? They have been crumbling. Do you remember the article from UC Irvine Hominan tried to us in support of evolution but instead it showed how flawed the science was for the past 80 years? Tell me you remember that little exchange we had. If you don't I'll be happy to provide you with the article AGAIN.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 23rd, 2011

• Mr Natural
  
  Quote, "LOL! You're more concerned with appearances than with substance."
  
  Why did you take me out of context to make it appear as if I only am concerned with appearance?
  
  Here is what I said, "This is exactly the lazy attitude supporters of evolutionary theory keep tossing, like a monkey tossing dung at a wall in hopes it will stick... I'm not trying to hurt your feelings here Mr. Natural but you have to do much better than that if you want to appear as if you know what you are talking about."
  
  If you remember, that was in response to your "argument by link". Tisk tisk, someone is not being honest. Did you forget comments are still here for all to see? :D
  
  Quote, "So far, neither you nor Nick has posted any evidence whatsoever that supports your wacky beliefs--not even "a few bones," as you sneered above."
  
  Someone hasn't been paying attention... Nick and I have provided arguments based on evidence that DNA and its ability to store information has no laws in the physical universe that can account for this. This is a strong argument for ID. Logic, also necessitates an uncaused cause, you can't escape that with any peer reviewed articles or lazy youtube responses.
  
  Quote, "That, my dear boy, is how evidence is collected, a few bones at a time. You Won't find a complete skeleton, pristine and perfect, lying on the grass, waiting for you to collect it and study it. A few bones is the most you can find. Are you just pretending to be so ignorant of paleontology?"
  
  Umm... Mr. Natural... I just pointed that out up above, so how is it I am pretending or are in fact ignorant? I made an assumption that you may or may not be aware of the details you just mentioned. Are you paying attention?
  
  Quote, "Have you EVER studied this subject, either in the field or in a classroom? Did you drop out of school to help pa corral the turkeys and milk the chickens on the farm? You do a lot of huffing and puffing, but all you've produced is froth and barm."
  
  Yeas I dropped out of school to help pa with the turkeys... Now can you actually address anything without things like this? Come on, just give it a try, you might like it. :D
  
  Quote, "Here is what you need to do, Nick and NOS:
  1. STATE YOUR BELIEFS up front. Yes, I know, you'll feel embarrassed to admit your beliefs publicly, but you need to perform this important first step so we'll all know just what you hope to prove. (Do you even know what you are trying to prove?)
  
  2. Present your evidence, even if all you have is "a few bones" (and you don't even have that). Maybe you have a lock of Jesus's hair that we can examine. A shred of the Shroud of Turin, showing the face of Jesus imprinted in the fabric? A splinter of wood from the Holy Cross? A rock fragment containing a letter or two from the original 10 Commandments?
  
  Summary:
  State your beliefs.
  Present your evidence.
  
  is that asking too much?"
  
  No, its not too much to ask. I thought we already did state we believe in an uncaused cause. In fact it has been mentioned. We have offered evidence for ID in DNA and its arrangement and capacity.
  
  NOW, I get you disagree and you have tons of evidence from the always correct and highly feared peer reviewed articles, so it should be a snap to disprove these beliefs of ours with empirical data and plausible arguments.
  
  We're all ears. :D

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 23rd, 2011

• BTW, please state your beliefs and the evidence that supports it.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 23rd, 2011

• Oh and BTW, the video is irrelevant to this discussion. The impersonation of monkeys tossing their dung at the wall in hopes something will stick is not working. Try another approach, the relevant one.
  
  And just a side note here, the various Omnis that are attributed to God we don't believe in the way the video and most of the so called Christian denominations believe. Neither do we believe in Hell or many of the other things others tend to believe. We are bible students, and our beliefs come from the bible itself. What the video did was present beliefs that started to be incorporated after the first century Christians.... In other words it has no bearing on our beliefs.
  
  Nice try though.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 23rd, 2011

• from the exact same link to the berkeley wed site i provided earlier except one tab down. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_20
  
  explains the causes of mutations. Seriously the entire evolution thing is on that page, take some time and read up on it because this is getting rediculous. And honestly quoting from Creationist intelligent design web sites... Can we have an adult conversation about the subject based on the facts instead of that garbage please?
  
  and nick, nick, i dont know what kind of "professors" youre talking too but the views youre ascribing to them leave me highly suspicious about their qualifications on the subject. The human hand is one of the best understood examples of evolution and there is nothing miraculous about it. I think you should read over the berkeley web page, you know Berkeley, the famous center of higher education respected the world over for top notch science learning and research... Heck you ought to forward it to your "professor" associates too just to see them squirm when confronted by the truth.
  
  Look you creationists are suffering from misconceptions about evolution and just need to be better educated about it. Here is that same web site from Berkeley clearing up many if not all the misconceptions ive heard in this conversation repeatedly.
  
  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#b5

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 23rd, 2011

• "Nice try though."
  
  Ok, how about this one. Jesus is god, god knows everything because the bible says he does. Jesus doesnt know the time of his own return, therefore jesus is not god, or god is not all knowing.
  
  Or this one. God is Supremely all loving and forgiving. God wiped out the entire human population in a flood. Either god is not all loving and forgiving or he did not wipe out all of man kind except noah in a flood.
  
  Or this one. God knows everything that will happen yet is surprised when Adam and eave defy him in the garden of eden. so either god knows everything that will happen and wasnt surprised or he doesnt know everything and was.
  If youve read the bible like i have you know these stories like the back of your hand and understand that the god of the bible cant be real because of how much he contradicts himself. The bible cant be true because the bible contradicts its self constantly.
  There might be a god, but it isnt that god. And honestly im glad because that god is a homicidal control freak who sadistically sets people up to fail. If god was so loving and wise he would have known that adam and eave would have failed the snakes test, so why did he let the snake in the garden in the first place? He must have wanted to torture adam and eave, either that or he isnt all knowing. either way he isnt forgiving or loving.
  
  And if god is perfect why does the world have imperfection? A perfect being doesnt make imperfect choices. God created man in his image, his image is perfect, therefore humans are perfect. Yet humans arent actually perfect because they make imperfect choices and are capable of imperfect things. Perfect creations wouldnt fall victim to disease of be tempted by sins.
  
  The whole thing is a monstrous load of bull for anyone who has actually read the bible and thought about it critically like i have.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 23rd, 2011

• @Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence 39 minutes ago
  
  ''Haeckel once admitted to his peers that he doctored the drawings, but that confession was forgotten.''
  
  "It looks like everybody, on both sides of the issue, forgot all about the confession. We can be sure if the creationists had remembered the confession, they would have brought it up long before this."
  
  Um they have. That's how I learned about it; from a college educated person in my church. Also keep in mind that Haeckel died in the early 1900s and that this known lie is still finding its way into high school textbooks. If this lie made it through what other lies and exaggerations also made it through to impressionable youth?

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 23rd, 2011

• You ought to like this. Since you think that these scientists are just a bunch of truth twisting liars heres on on the stand with potential jail time for not being honest.
  
  http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/Padian/Padian_transcript.html
  
  The testimony of Kevin Padian in Kitzmiller v. Dover
  
  If you actually take the time to read this youll have a better respect for the situation.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 23rd, 2011

• You know what? Whatever youre objections are just click the appropriate link. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0 I dug this up from the Berkeley site. So just look up your topic and click and voila there is the explination.
  
  for example, the cambrian explosion has been mentioned. the following is what is listed under the cambrian explosion link.
  
  The claim:
  In the Cambrian explosion, all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life.
  
  Source:
  
  Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Evolution, Washington DC: Regnery, pp. 40-45
  
  Response:
  1. The Cambrian explosion does not show all groups appearing together fully formed. some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today.
  
  
  2. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.
  
  
  3. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods.
  
  
  4. Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 23rd, 2011

• What I am seeing is nothing anyone can tell you will make you budge on anything. It is okay for you to quote from your camp, send websites, youtube videos, but if one of us quotes a Scientist all of a sudden that person is not really qualified or I am being bias for bringing up a source that disagrees with your doctrine.
  
  Gillaspy, I read your devastating reasoning in your attempt to undermine the Bible. You present so many false dilemmas I had to smile and almost feel sorry for you and your lack of true Bible understanding. I spent much time reading all the comments and will come back to your points you worked hard to bring up and see if they are irrefutable.
  
  Here is the first one:
  
  "Ok, how about this one. Jesus is god, god knows everything because the bible says he does. Jesus doesnt know the time of his own return, therefore jesus is not god, or god is not all knowing."
  
  Jehovah's Witnesses do not believe Jesus is God. Just like we tell you we are not "Creationists" but you are not listening. So you start off with an assumption of our beliefs and we will knock that one down right off the bat. I'll come back later to test the full strength of your arguments with you as I find time.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 23rd, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "from the exact same link to the berkeley wed site i provided earlier except one tab down. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_20
  
  explains the causes of mutations. Seriously the entire evolution thing is on that page, take some time and read up on it because this is getting rediculous."
  
  I know mutations happen. I know how they happen. I've been saying that this IS the key for evolution to work. I've been saying that this is what hurts evolutionary theory and have asked for you, since you disagree, to make an argument that shows a plausible path from evidence of what we know about mutations to the conclusion that this along with natural selection led to the complexity we observe in modern organisms........Why would you give me a link explaining "how" mutations happen and their cause, when that is not being challenged?
  
  Quote, "And honestly quoting from Creationist intelligent design web sites... Can we have an adult conversation about the subject based on the facts instead of that garbage please?"
  
  Adult conversation? Excuse me? Who is the one using youtube as the bulk of their argument, every sort of irrelevancy, dodging questions, changing the subject, launching insults, and not using reason to debunk any claims other than claiming the source is bias. Are you familiar with the "genetic" fallacy, or "poisoning the well" or "stacking the deck" fallacy?
  
  Genetic Fallacy
  "The genetic fallacy is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
  
  Poisoning the well.
  "Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
  
  Stacking the deck.
  "A fallacy in which any evidence that supports an opposing argument is simply rejected, omitted, or ignored."
  http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/stackingthedeckterm.htm
  
  Quote, "and nick, nick, i dont know what kind of "professors" youre talking too but the views youre ascribing to them leave me highly suspicious about their qualifications on the subject."
  
  What matters is if they are right or not. You need to consider the arguments and evidence.
  
  Quote, "The human hand is one of the best understood examples of evolution and there is nothing miraculous about it"
  
  Incorrect. You need mutations to change this, NOT change according to preexisting abilities. If you can't support that you have to come up with a better explanation for how things evolve or concede that science doesn't explain it.
  
  Quote, "Look you creationists are suffering from misconceptions about evolution and just need to be better educated about it. Here is that same web site from Berkeley clearing up many if not all the misconceptions ive heard in this conversation repeatedly."
  
  We are not creationist, can you please take a mental note... Additionally, you keep saying it is our lack of understanding that is the problem. But as has been shown to you in previous threads, it is the lack of evidence and plausibility that evolutions fails. Not our misunderstand, its just your credulous attitude toward the subject.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 23rd, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "Ok, how about this one. Jesus is god, god knows everything because the bible says he does. Jesus doesnt know the time of his own return, therefore jesus is not god, or god is not all knowing."
  
  Why? Are you nervous so that you have to change the subject? RED HERRING fallacy here. But Nick already answered that one.
  
  Quote, "Or this one. God is Supremely all loving and forgiving. God wiped out the entire human population in a flood. Either god is not all loving and forgiving or he did not wipe out all of man kind except noah in a flood."
  
  False dilemma. You are trying to make only two options when there is more. The other is that God wiped out the bad AND that, although he is loving and forgiving, he does not forgive those who are unrepentant and willfully disobedient. It is a loving thing to eliminate the bad.
  
  Quote, "Or this one. God knows everything that will happen yet is surprised when Adam and eave defy him in the garden of eden. so either god knows everything that will happen and wasnt surprised or he doesnt know everything and was."
  
  Free will. And remember it was mentioned to you yesterday that we don't believe in all the "Omni's" attributed to God by the major denominations? Jehovah God can choose to view up to where he wants but he granted us free will. When he grants free will he is giving us the choice to make. He made Adam and Eve perfect but with free will. Choosing a path other than God's is inherent in free will, should they choose it.
  
  Quote, "If youve read the bible like i have you know these stories like the back of your hand and understand that the god of the bible cant be real because of how much he contradicts himself. The bible cant be true because the bible contradicts its self constantly."
  
  People who says this usually never had an in depth study or have bad reading comprehension... Maybe you are different and have had a in depth study just a poor teacher. But, tell us, why do you say this? Is there ANOTHER youtube lesson in store for us or will actually be an adult and give us your pearls of wisdom?
  
  Quote, "If god was so loving and wise he would have known that adam and eave would have failed the snakes test, so why did he let the snake in the garden in the first place? He must have wanted to torture adam and eave, either that or he isnt all knowing. either way he isnt forgiving or loving."
  
  If God was homicidal why doesn't he just do it without making himself out to be a good guy? I mean, are you listening to what you are saying? And again, the all knowing thing is selective since he is granting free will.
  
  Quote, "And if god is perfect why does the world have imperfection?"
  
  Because sin entered into the world. And yes, we can elaborate, but, we are deviating much. If you really want an answer to religious questions post a relevant link and we can address it. But it make me think you are just try to cause a diversion here. Stay relevant.
  
  Oh and BTW Talk origins is sloppy and just as bias as any ID site. I seriously wouldn't use that site, but, if you wish go ahead...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 23rd, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "You know what? Whatever youre objections are just click the appropriate link. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB0 I dug this up from the Berkeley site. So just look up your topic and click and voila there is the explination."
  
  More "answers in a can" from now outdated understandings... Wow...
  
  Quote, "Response:
  1. The Cambrian explosion does not show all groups appearing together fully formed. some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today."
  
  No one is claiming that bacteria and fungus appeared ONLY during the Cambrian explosion. When this argument is made it is understood that it is the "major' animal groups especially vertebrates. So your response is not relevant.
  
  Quote, "2. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils."
  
  This does not negate the fact that the major groups appeared in the fossil record only during this period. In fact, it admits it and only offers a sorry excuse why intermediate fossils are not present. HOWEVER, we can see bacteria billions of years ago, some of the first life forms, by how they formed in the different areas of sediment. There is no such thing for intermediate life forms. Everything that is found is a variation of a kind and just as complex as their modern counterparts.
  
  Quote, "3. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods."
  
  What? Lets see that again...
  
  Quote, "3. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin."
  
  Anybody catch that? Lets look at number 2...
  
  Quote, "2. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian."
  
  Contrast that with, "3. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin."
  
  Trounced by your own info.
  
  But it still says, "For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods."
  
  So what are those transitional forms? Do share with us. :D
  
  Quote, "4. Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals."
  
  Genetic evidence only shows similarities since plants and fungi as well as everything else that lives, uses DNA to replicate and store information. Hence, it is only to be expected that similarities in replication and data storage, be found and hence information that allows for this to take place would be similar if not the same. Take a banana for example, it is said we share 50 percent DNA with bananas. Its a multicellular organism, of course we will be similar. This fits in well with a "common designer".

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 23rd, 2011

• Correction!!!
  
  I said" Free will. And remember it was mentioned to you yesterday that we don't believe in all the "Omni's" attributed to God by the major denominations? Jehovah God can choose to view up to where he wants but he granted us free will. When he grants free will he is giving us the choice to make. He made Adam and Eve perfect but with free will. Choosing a path other than God's is inherent in free will, should they choose it."
  
  It should say, "Choosing a path other than God's is an ability that comes with free will, should one choose it.
  
  But I think you all understood what I was trying to say...
  
  
  Good night all! :D

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 23rd, 2011

• First I will rant a little. it’s a sad state of affairs that our society applauds the sort of closed mindedness that leads to people rejecting reality in favor of 2000 year old superstitions. I guess people think they get to pick and choose what is real and whats not based on how they feel about it. I was watching the news the other day and someone said something like, “These evolution deniers get their two scientists to challenge the thousands of scientists support evolution with hard evidence then the deniers demand that there is a legitimate debate going on.” It really makes a person wonder what is so threatening about the whole evolution concept. Really shouldn’t we as a species be proud of ourselves for figuring out something like evolution? We were hardly scratching a living and dodging wild animals barely a blink ago on this planet, weve come a long way. But I guess that when Its looked at in a historical context the religious community has without fail resisted revelations about the natural world that threaten their grip on the minds of men. As a matter of fact you guys are so far behind the curve on this that its laughable. The catholic church admitted under pope john paul the second that evolution is happening exactly like the scientists said, and in an interview with the head astronomer for the Vatican (a priest or bishop or something) he said that there was absolutely no science in the bible and that it is very hard for him to take seriously any kind of literal interpretation of the bible. The point is that you guys are fighting a lost cause, even the mainstream religious groups have decided to give up that fight.
  
  About mutations. First I think youre being willfully stubborn on the subject and seeing some defect that doesn’t exist. Your claim that somehow mutations either by radiation or miss copy don’t provide the mechanism for evolution is what needs proving. Ive never heard or seen anything credible that challenges the causes of mutations as being unable to account for the changes to the genetic code. So Im throwing this one back to you, source please.
  
  “NOT change according to preexisting abilities.”
  
  Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:
  the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
  adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
  the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
  evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
  modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
  evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);
  
  
  Case closed (hopefully) Anticipating your next argument as a rejection of microbe evolution this is my preemptive response.
  
  Evolution works almost exclusively by gradual changes. It has taken hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary divergence to produce the existing phyla, and probably hundreds of thousands of years at least for classes to develop. For a new phylum, order, or class to arise suddenly would be creationism, not evolution.
  
  “It is a loving thing to eliminate the bad.”
  God knew when he created man that they would behave the way they did that prompted his extinguishing them from the surface of the earth except one man. (on a side note, what a mentally retarded shadow of our former glory we must be after such a population bottle neck.) God knew in the instant he created man that he would destroy us. If youre saying he didn’t know then youre saying he isn’t all knowing and you are directly contradicting quotable scripture. And if he did create man knowing he would wipe out almost the whole population then god is a sadist who likes to screw with people.
  
  Another example is the story of Job. God allows Jobs life

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 26th, 2011

• Another example is the story of Job. God allows Jobs life to be destroyed just to find out if he is really a dedicated believer. But if god knows everything then he already knew that Job was a dedicated believer so the testing was just sadistic. Again the bible has quotable verses that say that god knows everything past present and future.
  
  Even allowing for free will God who knows everything past present and future will know what people will decide to do. So trying to play the free will clouds gods vision card is not a good argument.
  
  “People who says this usually never had an in depth study or have bad reading comprehension...
  
  People who DON’T say this usually have never had an in depth OBJECTIVE study of the bible or have bad reading comprehension. You ought to see my old king james copy of the bible its highlighted in four colors the whole things covered with bookmarks and notes.
  
  About sin entering the world. God CREATED the world so anything entering into it is gods doing. Ergo god is responsible for sin being in the world AND he sees fit to punish his creations for his own doing! But we are supposed to worship such a sadistic tormentor? I think not! This of course assumes there even is such a god, and since no one has ever, EVER, provided even one scrap of evidence for such a gods existence there is no reason to even indulge the delusion.
  
  “Trounced by your own info”
  
  Maybe you should read it again… The fossils support what evolution predicts, and there arent a lot of fossils to be had. How exactly is that a contradiction? Oh, right its not.
  
  “shows similarities since plants and fungi as well as everything else that lives, uses DNA to replicate and store information. Hence, it is only to be expected that similarities in replication and data storage, be found and hence information that allows for this to take place would be similar if not the same. Take a banana for “
  
  Totally missing the point. Yes of course all life has some dna in common, after all we are all descended from the same original ancestor… And when that dna is looked at closely we can tell exactly where the branches of the family tree diverged. The amount in common is related to the relative times of divergence from common ancestry. Banana? Banana? …puts face in palm… please tell me you didn’t just try and throw that one in there… “Yeah well dur if your 50% banana then how come you don’t look like it dur” Come on I thought you understood this stuff better than that.
  
  Have a nice day.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 26th, 2011

• Looks like you forgot the new findings from UC Irvine that Hominan cited, in the thread you were on as well. Remember how it trashed, in essence, all the examples of bacteria changing as good examples for evolution? I guess I'll have to cite it again. I don't have time to search for it again, since I lost my easy access to all my stuff since reinstalling my OS. But, when I get a chance I'll look for it.
  
  As for the rest of your comments I'll get to them hopefully tonight or tomorrow. Sorry, its Sunday and we silly God believers have to go to congregation meeting, or church as some call it.
  
  Have a great day yourself. :D

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 26th, 2011

• Giving an example of what the "Catholic Church" says should somehow make us think that our position is incorrect because we are in the minority? They believe that God will torture his children forever! Their concept of God and Christ are not what Jehovah's Witnesses accept so why would we accept what they think about evolution or anything else for that matter. Mercy me!
  
  And who says that a perfect God created imperfect beings?
  
  The Bible describes God our Creator in these words: “The Rock, perfect is his activity, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness, with whom there is no injustice; righteous and upright is he.” (Deuteronomy 32:4)
  
  So if God is perfect, what about the Devil? Someone may reason, “Did not God create the Devil? If God created everyone he must have created the Devil? Who else could have?”
  
  The Bible explains that God created many, many spirit persons similar to himself. In the Bible, these spirits are called angels. Also, they are called “sons of God.” (Job 38:7; Psalm 104:4; Hebrews 1:7, 13, 14) God created them ALL perfect. Not one of them was a devil, or a satan. The word “devil” means slanderer and the word “satan” means opposer.
  
  The time came, however, when one of these spirit sons of God made himself “the Devil,” that is, a hateful liar who speaks bad things about another. He also made himself “Satan,” that is, an opposer of God. He was not created that way, but later became that kind of person.
  
  To illustrate: A thief is not born a thief. He may have come from a good family, having honest parents and law-abiding brothers and sisters. But his own desire for what money can buy is what may have caused him to become a thief. How, then, did one of God’s spirit sons make himself Satan the Devil?
  
  The angel that became the Devil was present when God created the earth and later the first human couple, Adam and Eve. (Job 38:4, 7) So he would have heard God tell them to have children. (Genesis 1:27, 28) He knew that after a while the whole earth would be filled with righteous people worshiping God. That was God’s purpose.
  
  However, this angel thought a great deal of his own beauty and intelligence and wanted to receive for himself the worship that would be given to God. (Ezekiel 28:13-15; Matthew 4:10) Instead of putting this wrong desire out of his mind, he kept thinking about it. This led to his taking action to obtain the honor and importance he desired. (James 1:14, 15)
  
  The same is true of the first human pair, Adam and Eve. In Ecclesiastes 7:29 it tells us, “See! This only I have found, that The true God made mankind upright, but they themselves have sought out many plans.” In Deuteronomy 32:5 we are told the same, “They have acted ruinously on their own part; They are not his children, the defect is their own. A generation crooked and twisted!”
  
  God made the man Adam upright, perfect, in the image and likeness of the perfect God. They were not pre-programmed robots. They also possessed free will, so they could choose their own course. (Joshua 24:15) Adam and Eve were created upright and were told of the course that would mean life, but they “sought out another plan, acted ruinously on their own, and became defective.
  
  They misused their freedom of choice. Eve, in a selfish grab for knowledge, unwisely disobeyed God. (Jeremiah 2:13) This disobedience showed a lack of love for the One who had given her life. “This is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments.” (1 John 5:3) Adam set aside his love for God to side with Eve in her rebellion. No longer were the divine attributes they had received in proper balance, but they were now incomplete, imperfect. (Genesis 6:12) And, true to God’s warning, they were sentenced to death, and they passed on to their offspring imperfection and death. (Psalms 51:5; Romans 5:12).
  
  ..continued

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 26th, 2011

• -continued
  
  What do we see? God gave both the one we now know as “the Devil, Satan,” a good start. He once was a perfect creation. The same is true of our first human parents who brought imperfection on themselves and eventually to us.
  
  God cannot be blamed for the imperfection we are in. We brought it on ourselves. I hope I made this “perfectly” clear. Will come back to address your other questions as I find time. Enjoy the weekend everyone.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 26th, 2011

• gilapsy
  
  Quote, "First I will rant a little. it’s a sad state of affairs..."
  
  The true sad state of affairs here is that you put more energy in rants like this, posting irrelevant youtube videos, and very little in the way of arguments from available evidence.
  
  Quote, "About mutations. First I think youre being willfully stubborn on the subject and seeing some defect that doesn’t exist."
  
  The defect, as has been mentioned to you over a year ago on the other thread, is that mutations don't do anything that the organism couldn't already do. AGAIN, the problem with the mutation aspect of the theory of evolution is mutations don't do anything that the organism couldn't already do with its preexisting genetic code. Every time you or anyone who supports evolution, mentions some type of evidence via mutation for a change and advantage it involves doing either:
  
  1)The mentioning of a mutation(s) that turns on/off a gene(s) or just a more or less expressed function of a gene it already has.
  
  2)Calling a mutation where it is merely recombination or an ability that a recombination could already accomplish.
  
  3)Calling the effect of a mutation "beneficial" in a situation where the circumstances/environment is so bad or skewed that the it only meets the criteria for "beneficial" out of extreme circumstances but overall it affects the organism negatively. i.e. sick cell disease.
  
  Quote, "Your claim that somehow mutations either by radiation or miss copy don’t provide the mechanism for evolution is what needs proving. Ive never heard or seen anything credible that challenges the causes of mutations as being unable to account for the changes to the genetic code. So Im throwing this one back to you, source please."
  
  You misunderstood or you have forgotten our previous conversations. The problem with the mutation aspect of the theory is not that it does not change something, its that it changes something that could already be changed by the organisms abilities via recombination or other mechanism that is NOT mutant. The other part and one I've mentioned to you more often is that the number of mutations that would have to occur randomly for new organs and functions to arise is improbable and hence implausible for the theory to hold any credibility. At best, examples are given in where some new metabolic ability emerges but its never anything that the organism didn't already have the machinery to metabolize.
  
  Now, onto your examples.
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 27th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Quote, "the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985); "
  
  This was NOT by way of mutations.
  
  "A 2007 paper that described a series of studies by a team led by Seiji Negoro of the University of Hyogo, Japan, suggested that in fact no frameshift mutation was involved in the evolution of the 6-aminohexanoic acid hydrolase."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nylon-eating_bacteria
  
  Quote, "adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);"
  
  NO new genes, just a more pronounced expression.
  
  "In the first of a proposed series of experiments (FRANCaInSd HANSCH1E97 2), we observed an adaptive enzyme modification in a wild-type population or S. cereuisiae when
  it was subjected to a chemostat environment in which fitness was a function of the activity of the external hydrolytic enzyme, acid phosphatase, at an unfavorably
  high pH with a very low concentration of substrate. A mutation of the acid phosphatase structural gene effected an upward shift in the pH optimum of the enzyme and a 30% increment in its activity."
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1212944/pdf/259.pdf
  
  Quote, "the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980)"
  
  Here we have a case where mutations did what an organism already could do. Recombination of class I and class II ebgA+ mutant strains. And before you mention that this was recombination of "mutant" strains I will remind you that it only means the mutation had the effect of making preexisting genes more or less pronounced. In order for evolution to work evolution's supporters MUST get around this.
  
  "it can also evolve via intragenic recombination
  in crosses between class I and class II ebgA+ mutant
  strains"
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC349650/pdf/pnas00493-0471.pdf
  
  Quote, "evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998)"
  
  This is an example of a symbiosis type relationship. You have unicellular organisms remaining unicellular in cluster of eight. The only thing they are doing is cooperating to survive. The challenge if you wish to use this as an example is show the "cause" NOT the effect. If it is an ability in the organism its part of its genotype NOT anything new. Even the title doesn't claim what you are attempting to do with this example.
  
  Title: Phagotrophy by a flagalette selects for colonial prey; A possible origin of multicellularity.
  http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=q239365007h43465&size=largest
  
  "hese colonies retained the eight-celled form indefinitely in continuous culture and when plated onto agar. These self-replicating, stable colonies were virtually immune to predation by the flagellate, but small enough that each Chlorella cell was exposed directly to the nutrient medium."
  http://www.springerlink.com/content/q239365007h43465/
  
  Show us the cause please.
  
  Quote, "modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);"
  
  I didn't see a mutation making this happen. It is possible you have a better source. Can we see it or where you just copying from a web site in hopes this was going to stick? Here is the link I found: http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=r5p79lr743775qt1&size=largest
  
  Do share something with us.
  
  Quote, "evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);"
  
  I'm still researching this one here: http://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/144/6/1631.full.pdf+html BUT I don't have time for it the rest of this day and I really don't think its going to yield you the results you wanted. But, I'll look more carefully.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 27th, 2011

• cont...
  
  As for the Job case you brought out... It shows you didn't understand the circumstances. It was NOT God trying to make Job prove his faithfulness. It was Satan trying to break Job and Jehovah having full confidence in him. The challenge comes in when Satan accuse Job of serving God for wrong motives. This was a challenge that power was not going to solve. I'll get into that more if I can tomorrow, later or Wednesday as well of the rest of the things you brought up. I see Nick addressed somethings so I won't go into those.
  
  
  
  THANKS NICK! I haven't got much time these days. I really appreciate it.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 27th, 2011

• Hi NOS, we all get busy but thanks for addressing these issues. We both know a person cannot be persuaded unless he is reasonable. And if a person refuses to accept the testimony of the Bible or reason, we may have to leave them in their unbelief.
  
  As Christians, our assignment is today is to give ‘a witness,' and we speak with conviction, but we both know we can only do so much. The choice is theirs and we do not deny them that right. I think you have went above and beyond what many would take time to do. I know you were once an Atheist and can relate to where they are coming from much more than I can. Thanks for your expressions.
  
  Gillaspy's questions are deserving of full consideration because it seems he is unacquainted and unfamiliar with all the Scriptural facts even though he is well studied. Him referring to the Catholic Church probably explains it.
  
  Gillaspy, simply put, God chooses to know what he does and what he does not. Why couldn’t he choose not to? If you rent a movie and you have the ability to fast forward the outcome do you choose to do so? You could, but perhaps rather not. Why presume what God does or how he acts toward his creation? God can exercise his power of foreknowledge but, as you seem to understand, he does not always foreknow indiscriminately all the future acts of his creatures.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 27th, 2011

• “NOT change according to preexisting abilities.”
  
  Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:
  the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
  adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
  the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
  evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
  modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
  evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);
  
  These fall into the category of micro evolution not macro evolution.
  
  I'm curious to know, if everything came from a common ancestor how did reptiles evolve into mammals or vice versa? Keep in mind the method of birth must change from egg laying to live birth, the mammal must grow breasts, and the newborns must gain the instinct to breast feed after birth.
  
  And could you also answer the age old question: Which came first, the chicken or the egg? If the egg came first what laid it? If the chicken came first how was it born? Such a major biological change takes millions of years so how could it happen in one generation? How could a "modern" hen evolve from another animal then lay an egg with a chick in it that then has the ability to lay it's own eggs?
  
  Please enlighten us ignorant people

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 27th, 2011

• One mans opinion, be prepared for another "answer in a can". Gilaspy seems like a good kid but he has bought this evolution thing, hook line and sinker, and refuses to acknowledge the weakness of his position.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 28th, 2011

• Nick
  
  Quote, "We both know a person cannot be persuaded unless he is reasonable. And if a person refuses to accept the testimony of the Bible or reason, we may have to leave them in their unbelief."
  
  This is true. But, I like taking these types of questions. Supporters of this type of science fiction usually don't have more than a superficial understanding of what evolution really needs to be in order for it to truly qualify as evolution in the "we have a common ancestor" dogma that they parrot.
  
  They also like to wave the "logic and reason" flag but they rarely understand it enough to realize they really don't have it. Once this is understood, they quickly dive into fallacies of the very sort they accuse the other side of committing.
  
  Its like a train wreck, its horrible but you can't help but look.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 28th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  OK RE:"evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);"
  
  As I suspected, I didn't even come close to what you were trying to show.
  
  "The genetics of pentitol catabolism in enteric bacteria is
  of interest for several reasons. (i) The dal and rbt genes
  are adjacent and oppositely oriented, perhaps indicating
  a gene duplication and inversion which occurred during
  their evolution (Charnetzky & Mortlock, 1974c ;
  Neuberger & Hartley, 1979; Scangos & Reiner, 1978).
  (ii) The dal and rbt genes are flanked by long (about
  1400 bp) inverted repeats and are perhaps part of a
  ' metabolic transposon ' (Link & Reiner, 1982). (iii) The
  dal and rbt genes are replaced in Dal- Rbt- strains by the
  non-homologous gat genes for galactitol metabolism
  (genotypic exclusion), i.e. these genes map at identical
  positions but appear to be mutually exclusive (Link &
  Reiner, 1983; Reiner, 1975; Woodward & Charles,
  1983). (iv) Pentitol catabolism has been used extensively
  (for a review see Mortlock, 1982) as a model for studying
  the acquisition of new metabolic capacities, in particular experimental evolution in chemostats involving gene
  duplications and amplifications (Hartley, 1984a ;
  Mortlock, 1984; Wu et al., 1968)."
  http://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/144/6/1631.full.pdf+html
  
  In other words, they don't the cause/origin... In other words, it doesn't help you out in what you were trying to show with this example.
  
  Now for the rest of what I was not able to get to...
  
  Quote, "Case closed (hopefully) Anticipating your next argument as a rejection of microbe evolution this is my preemptive response.
  
  Evolution works almost exclusively by gradual changes. It has taken hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary divergence to produce the existing phyla, and probably hundreds of thousands of years at least for classes to develop. For a new phylum, order, or class to arise suddenly would be creationism, not evolution."
  
  So you preemptively toss me an "answer in a can" from the evo camp? What is that supposed to show? I rejected evolution not adaption. Your examples are examples of adaption NOT evolution... Well... depending how loose you play with the word "evolution". A pattern I've noticed recently. Seems evo supporters know they quickly need their definitions to undergo evolutions of their own.
  
  In any event, that organisms change over long periods of time and these changes are gradual is what is being disputed. In other words your comment is circular. You are assuming the very thing I am questioning. In other words your answer in a can is not admissible since it illogical.
  
  Quote, "God knew when he created man that they would behave the way they did that prompted his extinguishing them from the surface of the earth except one man.....And if he did create man knowing he would wipe out almost the whole population then god is a sadist who likes to screw with people."
  
  Uh-no... God, in creating living beings (not just humans) with free will, creates an ability that only HE at one time possessed. This ability is the ability to make a choice that is not in the system as a pre-program.
  
  Animals on the other hand, are living beings but not with free will. They can display a wide variety of actions and the more complex they are the wider this can be, but, its instinctive, pre-programmed.
  
  God granting us free will means we are in a state of not having made a choice yet. He knows all the choices we can make but he has left up the choices for us to make.
  
  Jehovah granting Adam and us this choice shows HE exercises his ability of foreknowledge selectively and in its proper measure, like his power. For example, having all power does not mean he has to use all his power to do anything. Even us, we have more strength than we use on a day to day. When picking up a child or holding another loved one, making something that requires care as opposed to brute force.
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 28th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Quote, "People who DON’T say this usually have never had an in depth OBJECTIVE study of the bible or have bad reading comprehension. You ought to see my old king james copy of the bible its highlighted in four colors the whole things covered with bookmarks and notes."
  
  Well then you had a bad teacher or you didn't have one. This is easy to see by your misunderstanding of the story of Job.
  
  Quote, "About sin entering the world. God CREATED the world so anything entering into it is gods doing. Ergo god is responsible for sin being in the world AND he sees fit to punish his creations for his own doing! But we are supposed to worship such a sadistic tormentor? I think not!"
  
  Faulty logic again. God creates world therefore anything entering it is gods doing? How does that work? Ergo god is responsible for sin being in the world? Why? He didn't make the bad choice it was Adam. You are blaming God for the choices of Adam and Eve and Satan. This is not even close to logical.
  
  Quote, "This of course assumes there even is such a god, and since no one has ever, EVER, provided even one scrap of evidence for such a gods existence there is no reason to even indulge the delusion."
  
  Its been provided for you but your only angle around it is ignoring it and changing the subject... Don't think it has gone unnoticed.
  
  Quote, "Maybe you should read it again… The fossils support what evolution predicts, and there arent a lot of fossils to be had. How exactly is that a contradiction? Oh, right its not."
  
  The contradiction comes in when your examples say:
  
  Quote, "3. The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods."
  
  Notice, "inconsistent with sudden Cambrian origin" and then in 2.
  
  Quote, ""2. During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian."
  
  Notice "During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts" Kinda hard to harmonize the two. You can't have it both ways. You can't say the fossils are inconsistent with sudden appearances and then say it was during the Cambrian period the sudden appearances occurred.
  
  Quote, "Totally missing the point. Yes of course all life has some dna in common, after all we are all descended from the same original ancestor…"
  
  Or common designer. :D
  
  Quote, "And when that dna is looked at closely we can tell exactly where the branches of the family tree diverged."
  
  No, we can't. This again presupposes what is being questioned and willfully ignores what I am saying, that it is only to be expected if we all use the same method of storing information. Whether designed or not.
  
  Quote, "The amount in common is related to the relative times of divergence from common ancestry."
  
  Nope. This keeps changing as well. Every time a "missing link' is found a scrambling to salvage old theories happens with much debate among the scientific community. The picture is not as pretty as you paint it.
  
  Quote, 'Banana? Banana? …puts face in palm… please tell me you didn’t just try and throw that one in there… “Yeah well dur if your 50% banana then how come you don’t look like it dur” Come on I thought you understood this stuff better than that."
  
  Straw man, I call foul. The point was to show how having DNA in common is to be expected since we have the same method of storing information.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 28th, 2011

• BTW here is that article that shows how evolutionary theory has been wrong all along. I am surprised you have forgotten and used those examples of bacteria and yeast.
  
  "The findings, reported in the Sept. 15 online issue of Nature, contradict the long-held belief that sexual beings evolve the same way simpler organisms do and could fundamentally alter the direction of genetic research for new pharmaceuticals and other products."
  http://today.uci.edu/news/2010/09/nr_Fruitflies_100916.php
  
  “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology & evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator."
  
  I suggest you read the article again and pay attention to the consequences of believing in this silly theory.
  
  "Based on that flawed paradigm, Rose noted, drugs have been developed to treat diabetes, heart disease and other maladies, some with serious side effects."
  
  Say no to silly theories and lets use logic instead.
  
  Here is a link showing how adaption is very quick NOT slow and gradual as evolution needs be and is said to take place.
  
  "Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows."
  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
  
  That link above further trashes the long held slow gradual change dogma preached at the science pulpits around the world.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 28th, 2011

• Correction!!! The following at the bottom of this set of thoughts: As I suspected, I didn't even come close to what you were trying to show.
  
  "The genetics of pentitol catabolism in enteric bacteria is
  of interest for several reasons. (i) The dal and rbt genes
  are adjacent and oppositely oriented, perhaps indicating
  a gene duplication and inversion which occurred during
  their evolution (Charnetzky & Mortlock, 1974c ;
  Neuberger & Hartley, 1979; Scangos & Reiner, 1978).
  (ii) The dal and rbt genes are flanked by long (about
  1400 bp) inverted repeats and are perhaps part of a
  ' metabolic transposon ' (Link & Reiner, 1982). (iii) The
  dal and rbt genes are replaced in Dal- Rbt- strains by the
  non-homologous gat genes for galactitol metabolism
  (genotypic exclusion), i.e. these genes map at identical
  positions but appear to be mutually exclusive (Link &
  Reiner, 1983; Reiner, 1975; Woodward & Charles,
  1983). (iv) Pentitol catabolism has been used extensively
  (for a review see Mortlock, 1982) as a model for studying
  the acquisition of new metabolic capacities, in particular experimental evolution in chemostats involving gene
  duplications and amplifications (Hartley, 1984a ;
  Mortlock, 1984; Wu et al., 1968)."
  http://mic.sgmjournals.org/content/144/6/1631.full.pdf+html
  
  In other words, they don't the cause/origin... In other words, it doesn't help you out in what you were trying to show with this example.
  
  This should read "In other words, they don't KNOW the cause/origin..."
  
  Sorry bout that. :D

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 28th, 2011

• @NOS
  Below are some of your responses to my request that you and Nick (and OMO if he wants in) state your beliefs and present your evidence:
  
  1. ''we have offered evidence that suggest design in DNA and how none of the laws account for the arrangement of information.''
  
  OK, I'll bite. Where is this "evidence"? Can you clarify what you mean by "suggest"? Does logic allow you to use "prove" and "suggest" interchangeably? lol
  
  2. ''Nick and I have provided arguments based on evidence that DNA and its ability to store information has no laws in the physical universe that can account for this. This is a strong argument for ID.''
  
  Again, where is this "evidence"? What laws are you referring to in your "proof"? (You seem to be mushing over that part.) Is a "strong argument" for ID logically the same as proof of ID? (I don't think so, LOL)
  
  Here is my summary of what you and Nick have been saying throughout this thread. If you think you see an error, pls cite it:
  
  a. ''DNA and its ability to store information has no laws in the physical universe. We know this b/c we are familiar with all the laws of the physical universe, and no law accounts for complex DNA.''
  
  b. ''Nick and I can't think of any natural way that complex DNA could come to be.''
  
  c. ''It follows, therefore, that DNA was created by an intelligent designer.''
  
  That is the argument, in sum, that you and Nick have been presenting all along. Surely, even you can see the logical futility (and outright silliness) of that flimsy argument.
  
  3. ''I thought we already did state we believe in an uncaused cause. ... We have offered evidence for ID in DNA and its arrangement and capacity.''
  
  a. Oh, really? And what evidence do you have for an "uncaused cause"? It sounds pretty far-fetched to me. Can you provide some examples of uncaused causes? Links would be welcome, even a few Youtube videos.
  
  b. Please present some evidence for ''ID in DNA and its arrangement and capacity.'' The only pseudo-evidence you have offered is "Nick and I can't think of any natural source for DNA." Therefore, it follows that DNA must have a supernatural cause." Sorry, that's neither evidence nor logic. LOL!
  
  Try again?
  
  To help you respond to these questions and correct your illogical claims, let's assume that biological evolution has not been discovered yet. Darwin has not been born yet. Therefore, any attempted "refutation" of the Theory of Evolution is not relevant here. This will help keep you honest, logical, and focused. LOL
  
  Sorry about the length. I don't get into this thread very often any more. But I will come back now and then to let the air out of your balloon. LOL

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on June 28th, 2011

• Mr. Natural
  
  OK are you actually going to engage me this time or you going to ask questions and duck your tail again once I answer? We'll just have to find out, won't we? Please don't disappoint us this time. :P
  
  Quote, "OK, I'll bite. Where is this "evidence"? Can you clarify what you mean by "suggest"? Does logic allow you to use "prove" and "suggest" interchangeably? lol"
  
  Please use your scroll wheel and look at the video posted with Dr. Stephen Meyer on May 20th, 2011. Logic doesn't allow for the use of "prove" and "suggest" interchangeably. Though both can be used in the same conversation depending on the immediate use.
  
  Quote, "Again, where is this "evidence"? What laws are you referring to in your "proof"? (You seem to be mushing over that part.) Is a "strong argument" for ID logically the same as proof of ID? (I don't think so, LOL)"
  
  You are not good with reading comprehension I see. The evidence is in the arrangement and lack of laws to arrange them. I will remind you that you guys brought out chance over long periods of time to account for this. By doing so you acknowledge the lack of a law to account for the arrangement AND its Fibonacci sequence. And no, strong evidence is not proof. Its an inductive inference, a strong one. Read comments more carefully please. Before you "LOL" you need to understand when an inductive inference is being made versus a deductive one.
  
  Quote, "Here is my summary of what you and Nick have been saying throughout this thread. If you think you see an error, pls cite it:"
  
  My spider sense is tingling! LOL.
  
  Quote, "a. ''DNA and its ability to store information has no laws in the physical universe. We know this b/c we are familiar with all the laws of the physical universe, and no law accounts for complex DNA.''"
  
  Nice try to make us look like we believe we know every law. We don't have to, its not relevant. But no, that is not the argument. The argument is that we do know the laws in the physical universe that govern the matter of this size. What we don't really know is things on the Quantum level. But, this is not relevant as this suggest more randomness than we have in the larger part of the universe.
  
  "Chemical laws are those laws of nature relevant to chemistry."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_law
  
  Here is some more info: "The formation of peptides is nothing more than the application of the amide synthesis reaction. By convention, the amide bond in the peptides should be made in the order that the amino acids are written. The amine end (N terminal) of an amino acid is always on the left, while the acid end (C terminal) is on the right."
  http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/564peptide.html
  
  Quote, "b. ''Nick and I can't think of any natural way that complex DNA could come to be.''"
  
  This type of arrangement, without a physical law, has no other plausible explanation. Hence, ID is the most likely. Some would say proof. But we can't make the claim just yet. At lest I won't... Strong case though and sufficient for reasonable but skeptical persons to see ID.
  
  Quote, "c. ''It follows, therefore, that DNA was created by an intelligent designer.''"
  
  This is the likely case with from the evidence.
  
  Quote, "That is the argument, in sum, that you and Nick have been presenting all along. Surely, even you can see the logical futility (and outright silliness) of that flimsy argument."
  
  How is it logically futile? We never said it was absolute proof. Have you ever heard of conversational implicature?
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 28th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Quote, "a. Oh, really? And what evidence do you have for an "uncaused cause"? It sounds pretty far-fetched to me. Can you provide some examples of uncaused causes? Links would be welcome, even a few Youtube videos."
  
  Logic. Do you really need a link for logic? I don't think you understand there not many options.
  
  1. Something always existed that is or made up the physical universe.
  
  Or
  
  2. Absence of everything preceded everything.
  
  Or
  
  3. You don't know.
  
  If you go with the first you must acknowledge "something" always existed, an uncaused cause. You can argue it was not a God or any type of intelligence, but, thats a separate argument. Then the arguments begin but at least most people atheist or theist agree that much.
  
  If you go with the second, you must accept that in the absence of everything something comes out. But if this was the case, beyond the universe where there is the absence of the universe things must be coming into existence. But this has a very strong "why" it is that in the absence of everything anything or something comes into existence that gives rise to order. I think you can see the silliness of adopting this line of thought.
  
  If you accept the third you need to start thinking about it because if you don't know you shouldn't be an atheist, you should be an agnostic. Are you agnostic?
  
  Tell us which of the three you believe or maybe you have another option? I'd like to hear it.
  
  Quote, "b. Please present some evidence for ''ID in DNA and its arrangement and capacity.'' The only pseudo-evidence you have offered is "Nick and I can't think of any natural source for DNA." Therefore, it follows that DNA must have a supernatural cause." Sorry, that's neither evidence nor logic. LOL!"
  
  Guess you are not familiar with inductive logic. Well guess I do have to provide a link.
  
  "An inductive logic is a system of evidential support that extends deductive logic to less-than-certain inferences. For valid deductive arguments the premises logically entail the conclusion, where the entailment means that the truth of the premises provides a guarantee of the truth of the conclusion. Similarly, in a good inductive argument the premises should provide some degree of support for the conclusion, where such support means that the truth of the premises indicates with some degree of strength that the conclusion is true."
  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/#1
  
  The argument with DNA is inductive. The argument from the three points above are deductive. You may challenge those three by stating a fourth or more.
  
  Quote, "To help you respond to these questions and correct your illogical claims, let's assume that biological evolution has not been discovered yet. Darwin has not been born yet."
  
  And this will only put the onus on you since you believe it. I don't think you were thinking when you offered this, but, OK.
  
  Quote, "Therefore, any attempted "refutation" of the Theory of Evolution is not relevant here. This will help keep you honest, logical, and focused. LOL"
  
  That doesn't even make sense. Why would I attempt to refute an argument none of you are making? It is because you guys believe it that we are having this discussion. Its relevant because gilaspy thinks it is. And BTW its been refuted as you have just seen. LOL
  
  Now, if you disagree you are MORE than welcome to attack any of my premises and offer any negations you'd like, deductive or inductive arguments are welcome.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 28th, 2011

• You also need to offer your views and challenge ours with yours. Stop playing drive by and get in the ring already.
  
  I notice you don't really offer counters only "LOL's" and ask us questions.
  
  Kindly, time to put up or shut up.
  
  Quote, "Sorry about the length. I don't get into this thread very often any more. But I will come back now and then to let the air out of your balloon. LOL"
  
  The length is fine so long as its relevant. :D
  
  I believe letting the air out of my balloon would entail you actually addressing the issues I just mentioned and providing a better and therefore more plausible argument to our arguments. Your negations would need to be more plausible than our arguments.... You didn't address the issue I brought up to gilaspy. And if you meant to go back to our little exchange since you ducked tail and ran, you still didn't do that you just misunderstood or misrepresented what we said.
  
  Try again?
  
  I would hope so.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 28th, 2011

• Wow, that’s a lot of stuff to address so ill get to it in a minute. First some thoughts. As I read all those posts between mine and now a couple things jumped out at me. First was that my demands for proof that a god exists were not met with responses that satisfy any scientific scrutiny. That is to say they were anecdotal and scriptural or so disconnected with reality as to be by definition non testable. I want some clear hard evidence that something, anything, ever has been influenced by any god. That seems pretty wide open to me and such a powerful god whose so intimately involved should leave behind loads of metaphorical footprints. Like for example some kind of specific radiation signature when gods communicating to someone through prayer, or geological evidence that contradicts any known methods of formation. In the thousands of years of god screwing with us humans youd think there ought to be some evidence somewhere that this guy is real right? So cough it up already fellas, since youre so sure this should be easy. And I don’t want to hear any of this well you cant see it because you don’t want to see it bull. Just because a butterfly landed on your finger while you thought about your grandma doesn’t prove shes in heaven and listening to you mumbling.
  
  Another thing that jumped out at me was that my request for documentation on youre belief that mutations cant account for the changes to the genetic code was cleverly sidestepped. I think there was an article there about how sexual reproduction leads to recombination in ways that added to our understanding of the evolutionary process but that is not what I wanted because it doesn’t contradict the theory.
  
  On to the specifics
  
  First nick attempts to give me a bible story lesson about the origin of the devil and how eave and adam were made perfect but chose to be evil. Unfortunately for him I know these stories like the back of my hand already so nothing there came as a surprise to me. If there is evil in the world it is because he put it here because he created everything at the beginning. That is unavoidable. Satan chose to disobey because he was tierd of adam and eave getting all the love and or he wanted to screw human women, depends on how you read it. Ive also read the book of enoch, don’t know if you bible scholars have too but that thing puts an interesting twist on the story. The point is that god made satan and god knew when he created satan exactly what the future would bring for his creation. Let me back up and explain this differently. Youre an all powerfull god and you can see everything that is happening everything that will happen and everything that has ever happened. You this all powerful god decide to conjure up some beings to worship you. You know at the moment that you make those beings exactly what they will do from that point on untill the end of their existence because you know everything. So, the game is rigged. We might have free will but the end of the game is already known by god. This is a point that you cant get around no matter how hard you look into the scriptures. God is a sadist who created us knowing we would sin and punishes us anyways in spite of his creating us this way. God created adam and eave KNOWING they would fail. God created adam and eave in such a way that they would fail. If god didn’t want adam and eave to fail he could have created them in a way so that they wouldn’t have failed. The only logical conclusion is that if that god is real he created adam and eave and by extension the rest of us just so that he could torment us for screwing up exactly like he designed us to do.
  
  On a side note what kind of Christians are you if you don’t think that jesus was god? Im assuming that mohamed doesn’t do anything for you so youre probably not islamists so that leaves jewish? You seem jewish to me because all three worship the same god except Christians think that god had a son

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 28th, 2011

• On a side note what kind of Christians are you if you don’t think that jesus was god? Im assuming that mohamed doesn’t do anything for you so youre probably not islamists so that leaves jewish? You seem jewish to me because all three worship the same god except Christians think that god had a son named jesus, muslims think there was no son and that mohamed was the final prophet, and jews don’t think mohamed was a prophet or that jesus was the son of god. So you all sound jewish to me. After all youre reading the same book as the jews, the same book the Christians read and the same book that islam is derived from and includes parts of.
  
  “posting irrelevant youtube videos, and very little in the way of arguments from available evidence
  
  Hey fellas im not the one claiming to have a super friend that created the universe and talks to me with telepathic powers… I don’t think its unreasonable to ask you to prove youre little delusion before you go insulting me here. After all just because three pin heads agree the moons made of cheese and theres one person in the room who can prove it isn’t doesn’t make the moon made of cheese. Large numbers of wrong people do not change the facts to suit their false beliefs. I have linked to you scientific videos produced by scientists explaining the subject of evolution in great detail, ive also linked to you videos of philosophers debunking logically the notion of gods being a necessary prerequisite for existence. Ive also linked to you prestigious scientific university web sites to help you review the evidence. And ive explained at great length in my own words, dozens of pages, thousands of words, the same information. Youre characterization of me as juvenile and lacking sustentative depth is inaccurate and pandering to youre fellow pinheaded believers.
  
  “AGAIN, the problem with the mutation aspect of the theory of evolution is mutations don't do anything that the organism couldn't already do with its preexisting genetic code.”
  
  Where is the proof? I hear the wind from a lot of lip flapping but Im not seeing any scientific journal articles backing up that statement there. Youre claiming something that flies in the face of the scientific community but youre so arrogant about it that you don’t even feel the need to cite a source to back up what youre saying. Obviously a single celled animal doesn’t have the specific genetic code to produce a dogs paw. However a dog has pretty much all of the genetic code that a single celled animal does. Someone mentioned nested hierarchies. Theres a major failure here to understand the concepts in play on your part fella. O also there are lots of different ways that single celled animals could make specific proteins to do certain tasks but they make the same one that dogs make because dogs got it from the common ancestor of single celled animals and dogs. The evidence is overwhelming people. You can keep claiming theres is a debate here but aside from a few discredited disproved crackpots on the fringe the issues been settled.
  
  “both know a person cannot be persuaded unless he is reasonable. And if a person refuses to accept the testimony of the Bible or reason, we may have to leave them in their unbelief. “
  
  Wow, so the testimony of the bible and reasonable are in the same category now? Ok that’s just funny, so the same book that says a guy lived in a fish for three days and that unicorns and witches are real and that donkeys can talk and that the world was created in seven, count them , seven days is now logical and reasonable and Im not reasonable or logical unless im on board with believing it. That’s just too hilarious to address further fellas. Well, except maybe to say that if youre so confident then how come its so hard to materialize even one good piece of evidence that your imaginary friend is real???
  
  “I'm curious to know, if everything came from a common ancestor how did reptiles evolve in

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 28th, 2011

• “I'm curious to know, if everything came from a common ancestor how did reptiles evolve into mammals or vice versa? Keep in mind the method of birth must change from egg laying to live birth, the mammal must grow breasts, and the newborns must gain the instinct to breast feed after birth. “
  
  Humans lay eggs too except they never make it out of a womans uterus. Gradual changes over hundreds of millions of years. Its in the fossil records, in order. Genetic drift, isolated populations adapting to different environmental pressures. It isn’t as if one day a lizard gave live birth to a mouse. But someone else brought up the lizard evolving really fast example and that’s easy to explain too. Evolution doesn’t happen at a fixed rate. Evolution is a rate that is dependant on the conditions. If an organism is introduced into a new habitat where there arent predators and is a lot of food they will evolve rapidly. In highly specialized highly competitive environments with very nich specific species all in tight competition the rate can be a lot slower because there arent a lot of opportunities for those species to take advantage of. The fossil record shows examples of both fast evolution and slow evolution. It all depends on the specific situation. About lizards and mammals again; Its like how you can tell if you and a distant relative are related. When you look at youre dna and your distant relatives dna you can see the parts that are the same and the parts that are different and by cross referencing the two you can tell how far back you two must be related. Mammals and reptiles are the same way, there are parts that are the same and parts that are different and the parts that are the same are from the common ancestor. This stuff is accepted in the court of law to determine inheritances and prove paternities so I don’t see why it isn’t god enough for you!?
  
  “Supporters of this type of science fiction”
  
  Laugh my ass off you did not just say that im spouting science fiction??…!!! Youre the one with an imaginary friend whom you claim speaks to you telepathically and created the universe… Science fiction evolution is not… But I see why in light of your own science fiction like beliefs youd seek to characterize any challenges in the same venue for the sake of easy dismissal.
  
  “are examples of adaption NOT evolution”
  
  Fail on your part at understanding. Evolution is a gradual process that makes tiny adaptations to the genetic code of very large numbers of generations. Those adaptations can be mutations or recombination of existing code via reproduction or miss copy during replication. Your bent is all about seeing gradual changes then screaming naaaa haaaa that’s just adaptation when adaptation by gradual changes is the very mechanism of evolution in the first place…. For crying out loud you’ve really made an ass of yourself havent you? Oh, I can feel the rage boiling now in you as you read this, so before you type a singe word GO FIND A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR RESICULOUS ASSERTION OTHERWISE CRAWL BACK INTO THE CREATIONIST HOLE YOU CAME OUT OF!!
  
  “but, its instinctive, pre-programmed”
  
  And gorillas that speak sign language understand over a thousand signs and use over four hundred to communicate their complex feelings and thoughts and emotions is a fantasy… Youre a monster for denying the consciousness of higher animals…
  
  
  “Quote, "And when that dna is looked at closely we can tell exactly where the branches of the family tree diverged."
  
  No, we can't.”
  
  Yes we can, that’s the freaking point of the genetic evidence is exactly that you can tell exactly how far back and where the branches diverged. Before the dna was examined we guesses (correctly) based on fossils but now the dna just confirms what evolution had predicted all along, common ancestry!
  
  “The findings, reported in the Sept. 15 online issue of Nature, contradict the long-held beli

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 28th, 2011

• I will try and address these issues tomorrow if time permits. Tuesday nights I also have congregation meetings.
  
  
  One thing, just out of curiosity, gilaspy, do you have other people, maybe your wife or some friend or relative, that use your account? You sound very, very different from a year ago, a few weeks ago and just now.... If not, just say so, I'm just curious if you have someone helping you type this stuff up and helping you respond. NOT that there is anything wrong with that in of itself.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 28th, 2011

• “The findings, reported in the Sept. 15 online issue of Nature, contradict the long-held belief that sexual beings evolve the same way simpler organisms do and could fundamentally alter the direction of genetic research for new pharmaceuticals and other products”
  
  So, this doesn’t contradict evolutionary theory! This refines our understanding of the mechanisms involved. You pointing to that article and saying to proves evolution is false is just completely laughable. Next you’ll be showing me studies of micro organisms developing previously lost abilities and claiming that also disproves evolution…
  
  I don’t know why im entertaining these questions from you creationist religious people, it must be that I feel pity for you. I honestly see you like the people in platos cave, seeing shadows on the wall and making up your explanations as you go. Maybe you can get out of the darkness but social pressures from your communities to keep you from rejecting your inherited beliefs surely figures negatively into the chances.
  
  Remember all I want is three things.
  
  1) proof that your imaginary telepathic god creator friend is real
  2) A credible source claiming that the current mechanisms for evolution are insufficient in creating the diversity required for natural selection to act upon in the gradual process of evolution.
  3) A credible source providing ANY evidence of intelligent design.
  
  Definition of credible- Peer reviewed scientific journal article.
  
  Its time to put up or shut up guys.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 28th, 2011

• "gilaspy, do you have other people, maybe your wife or some friend or relative, that use your account?"
  
  Nope, just me. Sometimes its more of a stream of consciousnes thing, sometimes its more structured bit by bit. But its always me.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 28th, 2011

• It took a while just to read through all these comments once again. I have family we picked up from the airport today visiting so I will check in as I have time. Gillaspy what do you mean "what kind of Christians are we" if we do not believe Jesus is God? Did Jesus ever say he was God? You claim you know the Bible so well, never once did he claim to be God. Jesus has someone who is God to Him at every stage of his life. This is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Ephesians 1:3) His name is Jehovah/Yehowah. More to come.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 28th, 2011

• gilapsy
  
  Its late but I got some time now... Hope I can get to everything you just said.
  
  Quote, "Nope, just me. Sometimes its more of a stream of consciousnes thing, sometimes its more structured bit by bit. But its always me."
  
  OK fair enough. Now onto your other comments.
  
  Quote, "First some thoughts. As I read all those posts between mine and now a couple things jumped out at me. First was that my demands for proof that a god exists were not met with responses that satisfy any scientific scrutiny."
  
  What part of "there are no laws to account for the arrangement of information and Fibonacci sequence" is unscientific? Matter of fact, science tell us, as Dr. Stephen Meyer points out, that this arrangement is not by a law. Furthermore, we know how things are arranged, please look at the links on chemical laws and the link on the formation of peptides.
  
  Quote, "That is to say they were anecdotal and scriptural or so disconnected with reality as to be by definition non testable."
  
  Well, this is testable and knowable, its chemistry. The arrangement of life producing proteins is unlikely to the point that a strong argument for ID is more likely than its negation. Chemicals can arrange themselves and bond but only as far as the laws permit, not in the information necessary for life. Bonding and bonding in a way that carries information are two totally separate things.
  
  Quote, "I want some clear hard evidence that something, anything, ever has been influenced by any god. That seems pretty wide open to me and such a powerful god whose so intimately involved should leave behind loads of metaphorical footprints."
  
  The Big Bang. It cannot be refuted that at one time matter and energy came into existence and prior to this the physical laws did not exists, since the physical world where the laws exist was not present. All effects are results of causes. The effect of the Big Bang needs a cause. The cause must be super natural. This cannot be side stepped, there is no way around this. At this point, we can see that this cause MUST logically be immaterial, since the material was not in existence. That cause can be caused itself, I can see where that can be argued and we JW's would agree (it has to do with things being created through Jesus but thats a whole other subject) but at some point, an uncaused cause is logically necessary. Here is where logic and science (cause and effect) meet so that an uncaused cause is logically necessary. Something had to have always existed. It could not be physical as it came into existence. It must must be immaterial, infinite, and all powerful. NOTHING can affect something that was alone, since nothing was there to affect it, hence, any action taken must be one of free will. Where there is free will, there is intelligence. So now we have an immaterial, infinite (time also came into existence), all powerful intelligence, we now have a person. We now have an uncaused cause that caused things to come into existence. His name is Jehovah.
  
  Here is the definition of Jehovah from the book, Insight on the scriptures: (Je·ho′vah) [the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wah′ (become); meaning “He Causes to Become”].
  
  Quote, "Like for example some kind of specific radiation signature when gods communicating to someone through prayer, or geological evidence that contradicts any known methods of formation."
  
  Listen carefully to what you are asking for... You are asking for physical evidence of the NON physical. Lest you claim this is special pleading, I will remind you it is a logical necessity that whatever caused the Big bang, God or not, cannot be physical in nature. Hence, the request is not reasonable.
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 29th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Quote, "In the thousands of years of god screwing with us humans youd think there ought to be some evidence somewhere that this guy is real right? So cough it up already fellas, since youre so sure this should be easy."
  
  You make it seem as if the bible or we JW's are claiming God is always intervening with every process in the physical. Matter of fact, God only communicated on occasions with certain prophets, who would in turn communicate the messages to his people.
  
  Quote, "Another thing that jumped out at me was that my request for documentation on youre belief that mutations cant account for the changes to the genetic code was cleverly sidestepped."
  
  Whoa there, easy now. 1)I didn't make that argument and 2)I never denied mutations can't cause changes. In fact, I state that they do make changes to genes but that they don't change something the organism couldn't do already via natural (non mutational) processes, i.e, recombination, adaption. So I don't have to refute something I agree with you on. What you have to show evidence of is that mutations can cause an increase in information, not a rearranging of existing information.
  
  Quote, "I think there was an article there about how sexual reproduction leads to recombination in ways that added to our understanding of the evolutionary process but that is not what I wanted because it doesn’t contradict the theory."
  
  It doesn't contradict the theory it renders it useless. The changes we see are all possible with recombination so sorts. The only reason you need something else is if you want to show organisms becoming more complex without ID.
  
  Quote, "First nick attempts to give me a bible story lesson about the origin of the devil and how eave and adam were made perfect but chose to be evil. Unfortunately for him I know these stories like the back of my hand already so nothing there came as a surprise to me."
  
  Well you brought it up. What was he supposed to do?
  
  Quote, "If there is evil in the world it is because he put it here because he created everything at the beginning. That is unavoidable. Satan chose to disobey because he was tierd of adam and eave getting all the love and or he wanted to screw human women, depends on how you read it."
  
  The only thing that is unavoidable is that with free will comes the choice to make a choice. That God allowed them to make that choice is also true, its part of free will. It was not, however, something they had to do (free will again). You'd have to argue free will is a bad thing to allow in of itself. Go ahead and argue that if you'd like.
  
  Quote, "Ive also read the book of enoch, don’t know if you bible scholars have too but that thing puts an interesting twist on the story."
  
  We don't believe the book of Enoch so its irrelevant to our belief system and hence irrelevant to this conversation.
  
  Quote, "The point is that god made satan and god knew when he created satan exactly what the future would bring for his creation. Let me back up and explain this differently. Youre an all powerfull god and you can see everything that is happening everything that will happen and everything that has ever happened. You this all powerful god decide to conjure up some beings to worship you. You know at the moment that you make those beings exactly what they will do from that point on untill the end of their existence because you know everything. So, the game is rigged. We might have free will but the end of the game is already known by god. This is a point that you cant get around no matter how hard you look into the scriptures."
  
  You forgot the whole, God uses his abilities selectively thing I mentioned either earlier today or yesterday.
  
  ...cont

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 29th, 2011

• cont...
  
  Quote, "God is a sadist who created us knowing we would sin and punishes us anyways in spite of his creating us this way. God created adam and eave KNOWING they would fail. God created adam and eave in such a way that they would fail. If god didn’t want adam and eave to fail he could have created them in a way so that they wouldn’t have failed."
  
  The only way that could be is if he created them without free will. Like I said, you can argue against free will being a good thing.
  
  Quote, "The only logical conclusion is that if that god is real he created adam and eave and by extension the rest of us just so that he could torment us for screwing up exactly like he designed us to do."
  
  Nope, read the above comments.
  
  Quote, "On a side note what kind of Christians are you if you don’t think that jesus was god? Im assuming that mohamed doesn’t do anything for you so youre probably not islamists so that leaves jewish? You seem jewish to me because all three worship the same god except Christians think that god had a son named jesus, muslims think there was no son and that mohamed was the final prophet, and jews don’t think mohamed was a prophet or that jesus was the son of god. So you all sound jewish to me. After all youre reading the same book as the jews, the same book the Christians read and the same book that islam is derived from and includes parts of."
  
  This may seem odd to you but our beliefs are bible based. The other religions are not. They have creeds and doctrines that came after the bible was written or believe only other sources like in the case of the Muslims. Jehovah's Witnesses are the only denomination that derives doctrine by the bible interpreting itself.
  
  Quote, "Hey fellas im not the one claiming to have a super friend that created the universe and talks to me with telepathic powers… I don’t think its unreasonable to ask you to prove youre little delusion before you go insulting me here."
  
  We don't communicate with God telepathically, please take a mental note. As for ridiculing you, its not our intention. Calling you on it is not wrong. YOU need to address the issue we bring up with evidence. Notice we do. Whenever you do bring in some info its addressed and debunked... I told you not to use Talk origins, its sloppy. Put it this way, if I were an atheist again, and was in a debate, Talk origins would be the LAST thing I considered. Its not so much that its bias, but, that its bias to the point they misrepresent data that is easy to access and debunk. Notice how you presented those examples with bacteria and yeast? Well, it was easy as long as you access the source and then see its NOT what you were led to believe.
  
  Quote, "After all just because three pin heads agree the moons made of cheese and theres one person in the room who can prove it isn’t doesn’t make the moon made of cheese. Large numbers of wrong people do not change the facts to suit their false beliefs."
  
  Right back at ya...
  
  Quote, "I have linked to you scientific videos produced by scientists explaining the subject of evolution in great detail, ive also linked to you videos of philosophers debunking logically the notion of gods being a necessary prerequisite for existence."
  
  Fallacies upon fallacies, no matter how numerous don't make for a valid argument.
  
  Quote, "Ive also linked to you prestigious scientific university web sites to help you review the evidence."
  
  Of now outdated information. That isn't going to do you any good. You need to get with the current understandings and not be so taken in by prestigious universities.
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 29th, 2011

• cont...
  
  Quote, "And ive explained at great length in my own words, dozens of pages, thousands of words, the same information. Youre characterization of me as juvenile and lacking sustentative depth is inaccurate and pandering to youre fellow pinheaded believers."
  
  Uh--no... You post youtube videos and links, copy paste supposed confirmations without looking at the actual research to see if it really says or implies what you thought it did. At least this has been the case in our exchanges. To your credit, you did try about a year ago to address the issue, but, every thing you brought out was debunked.
  
  Quote, "Where is the proof? I hear the wind from a lot of lip flapping but Im not seeing any scientific journal articles backing up that statement there."
  
  Well, for starters you can look at the actual papers I quoted that debunked your claims you copied from Talk origins. I took the time and pasted the relevant info that debunked your claims. Then you can look at the UC Irvine report that debunked the long held evo dogma.
  
  Quote, "Youre claiming something that flies in the face of the scientific community but youre so arrogant about it that you don’t even feel the need to cite a source to back up what youre saying."
  
  UC Irvine.
  
  Quote, "Obviously a single celled animal doesn’t have the specific genetic code to produce a dogs paw. However a dog has pretty much all of the genetic code that a single celled animal does."
  
  Tells ya even simple life ain't that simple. Tells ya somethin else...
  
  Quote, "Someone mentioned nested hierarchies. Theres a major failure here to understand the concepts in play on your part fella. O also there are lots of different ways that single celled animals could make specific proteins to do certain tasks but they make the same one that dogs make because dogs got it from the common ancestor of single celled animals and dogs. The evidence is overwhelming people."
  
  This fits in with a common designer. The evidence is overwhelming.
  
  Quote, "You can keep claiming theres is a debate here but aside from a few discredited disproved crackpots on the fringe the issues been settled."
  
  UC Irvine says otherwise... Well not in those words, but, it certainly trounced the Darwinian dogma quite nicely.
  
  Quote, "Wow, so the testimony of the bible and reasonable are in the same category now? Ok that’s just funny, so the same book that says a guy lived in a fish for three days and that unicorns and witches are real and that donkeys can talk and that the world was created in seven, count them , seven days is now logical and reasonable and Im not reasonable or logical unless im on board with believing it. That’s just too hilarious to address further fellas. Well, except maybe to say that if youre so confident then how come its so hard to materialize even one good piece of evidence that your imaginary friend is real???"
  
  Again, read the part on asking for physical evidence of the non physical. Your request is illogical.
  
  Quote, "Humans lay eggs too except they never make it out of a womans uterus. Gradual changes over hundreds of millions of years. Its in the fossil records, in order. Genetic drift, isolated populations adapting to different environmental pressures."
  
  There is the answer in a can with no evidence just assertions.
  
  Quote, "But someone else brought up the lizard evolving really fast example and that’s easy to explain too. Evolution doesn’t happen at a fixed rate. Evolution is a rate that is dependant on the conditions."
  
  And mutations which you seem to be lacking evidence for showing they do anything more than rearrange existing information.
  
  Quote, "If an organism is introduced into a new habitat where there arent predators and is a lot of food they will evolve rapidly."
  
  Oh really? You keep telling everyone the circumstances in which they evolve, but, not the actual cause of the information... Oh wait, thats mutations, something you can't sustain the burden of proof for.
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 29th, 2011

• cont...
  
  Quote, "Laugh my ass off you did not just say that im spouting science fiction??…!!! Youre the one with an imaginary friend whom you claim speaks to you telepathically and created the universe… Science fiction evolution is not… But I see why in light of your own science fiction like beliefs youd seek to characterize any challenges in the same venue for the sake of easy dismissal."
  
  Why do you insist on Straw man arguments? Is it because you don't have logical arguments to offer?
  
  Quote, "Fail on your part at understanding. Evolution is a gradual process that makes tiny adaptations to the genetic code of very large numbers of generations. Those adaptations can be mutations or recombination of existing code via reproduction or miss copy during replication."
  
  Ah, sleight of hand. Sorry but, you can't use recombination since it is a preexisting process that accounts for variation in species. We are not disputing that. Looks like you are attempting to make it sound as if you meant "recombination" all along.
  
  Quote, "Your bent is all about seeing gradual changes then screaming naaaa haaaa that’s just adaptation when adaptation by gradual changes is the very mechanism of evolution in the first place…."
  
  Not according to Berkeley. The mechanism is NOT as you state. See for yourself...
  
  "There are a few basic ways in which microevolutionary change happens. Mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are all processes that can directly affect gene frequencies in a population."
  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/IVBMechanisms.shtml
  
  Quote, "For crying out loud you’ve really made an ass of yourself havent you? Oh, I can feel the rage boiling now in you as you read this, so before you type a singe word"
  
  LOL. Who is the Equus asinus now?
  
  Quote, "GO FIND A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL ARTICLE THAT SUPPORTS YOUR RESICULOUS ASSERTION OTHERWISE CRAWL BACK INTO THE CREATIONIST HOLE YOU CAME OUT OF!!"
  
  UC Irvine.
  
  Quote, "And gorillas that speak sign language understand over a thousand signs and use over four hundred to communicate their complex feelings and thoughts and emotions is a fantasy… Youre a monster for denying the consciousness of higher animals…"
  
  If you want to make that case you'd have to show its not instinctive. Now we would be getting into consciousness and Godel's incompleteness theorm. Kurt Godel my favorite logician, Liebniz coming in second. Lets do it! :D
  
  Quote, "Yes we can, that’s the freaking point of the genetic evidence is exactly that you can tell exactly how far back and where the branches diverged. Before the dna was examined we guesses (correctly) based on fossils but now the dna just confirms what evolution had predicted all along, common ancestry!"
  
  You are only looking at organisms with the same methods of replication, its only to be expected. How close are we with chimps and zebra fish? I can't find my old link but zebra fish are like 85 percent similarity... We use DNA, its going to be similar. Morphologically we are similar to chimps but not to zebra fish and yet, we are that close. It goes to show its not evidence only something to be expected.
  
  Quote, "So, this doesn’t contradict evolutionary theory! This refines our understanding of the mechanisms involved. You pointing to that article and saying to proves evolution is false is just completely laughable."
  
  It makes your examples completely laughable since they completely contradict your use of those examples as evidence.
  
  Quote, "I don’t know why im entertaining these questions from you creationist religious people, it must be that I feel pity for you. I honestly see you like the people in platos cave, seeing shadows on the wall and making up your explanations as you go"
  
  Uh-no, thats what evolutionist do and every time a new fossil comes up, more new rules as they go along.
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 29th, 2011

• cont...
  
  Quote, "1) proof that your imaginary telepathic god creator friend is real
  2) A credible source claiming that the current mechanisms for evolution are insufficient in creating the diversity required for natural selection to act upon in the gradual process of evolution.
  3) A credible source providing ANY evidence of intelligent design."
  
  Feel free to read the quote, arguments and click the link and enjoy :D
  
  Quote, "Definition of credible- Peer reviewed scientific journal article."
  
  Can you provide us with that for your beliefs that God doesn't exist? NO, you cannot. Does this mean he does exist? :D
  
  Quote, "Its time to put up or shut up guys."
  
  TAG you're it! :D

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 29th, 2011

• “there are no laws to account for the arrangement of information and Fibonacci sequence”
  
  Do you even know what Fibonacci sequences and golden ratios are? A classic example is the spiral horn of a mountain goat. The horn grows according to a Fibonacci sequence and stays perfectly balanced no matter how large it grows. That always staying balanced is important because if it didn’t the goat would be having to relearn how to balance its whole life. Another example is the way branches are arranged on trees. No matter how big the tree gets it will always stay balanced thanks to arranging its branches according to a Fibonacci sequence. So there is an advantage to Fibonacci sequences that nature can select in the competitive natural selection process. That in absolutely no way proves a designer or a god. Sorry to break it to you but you are going to have to try again or try harder.
  You seem to think that since Dna contains instructions for building proteins that its somehow supernatural but that just isn’t true. Sure the dna of complex organisms is crazy huge and complicated but it got that way by gradually building up small changes and additions over billions of years. Its not a mystery and it doesn’t prove that a god is involved or designed anything. Sorry but youre going to have to try again or try harder.
  
  “The arrangement of life producing proteins is unlikely to the point that a strong argument for ID”
  
  If Scientists were claiming that modern single celled organisms spontaneously emerged from zapped mud puddles id totally be on your side but that just isn’t the case. The first life was very simple compared even to single celled organisms and I referenced work by Dr. Szostak of HARVARD explaining the EXACT CHEMICAL PROCESS that probably led to the first formation of life. As it turns out there are no extreme low probability events even required completely shattering the oft repeated creationist claim that only an act of god could account for such a thing. So again sorry but that’s three tries and so far youre coming up short so lets see what you have next.
  
  “The effect of the Big Bang needs a cause.”
  
  And the movement of stars in the sky needed a cause and can you guesse what cause people assumed was responsible in the absence of actual evidence? O that’s right gods. It’s the same old story again with the big bang. Just like with the movement of the stars there is no evidence that god has anything to do with the cause of the big bang but it’s a dark spot in our testable information due to our current technical limitations. So interjecting your god into that gap doesn’t prove that god exists, at best it just throws out the possibility that a god could have been a cause. Its more likely that the universe has more dimensions than the four we traditionally deal with and interactions in those extra dimensions gave rise to the expansion of our universe. That’s the cutting edge of physics astronomy research if you cared to know. But if you insist on your god of the gaps argument that’s fine but it fails the test of providing any testable evidence that a god exists.
  
  “You are asking for physical evidence of the NON physical”
  
  If your non physical god interacts with the physical universe then that interaction will alter the physical universe in some way. It has to otherwise there would be no interacting with our universe. Even if it just pushes some atoms around or whatever there should be something.
  
  “What you have to show evidence of is that mutations can cause an increase in information, not a rearranging of existing information.”
  
  When a piece of dna is being copied and instead of going abcde instead goes abcbde because of a copy mistake that is information being added. Thanks for playing try again. O and that abcbde can get hit by radiation causing a mutation leading to abbde, and that can get copied wrong leading to abble and that can be hit by radiation leading

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 29th, 2011

• When a piece of dna is being copied and instead of going abcde instead goes abcbde because of a copy mistake that is information being added. Thanks for playing try again. O and that abcbde can get hit by radiation causing a mutation leading to abbde, and that can get copied wrong leading to abble and that can be hit by radiation leading to able. But wait able is a name so that’s definitely proof that god made it right? See how laughable that is when you actually understand how the copy mistake mutation process works?
  
  “The changes we see are all possible with recombination so sorts.”
  
  Novel new pieces of code can account for additions to the genetic code due to copy mistakes and radiation but recombination of existing material also can create novel new pieces of code too. They aren’t mutually exclusive as in one or the other must be the only thing happening. But to say that recombination can account for everything is only remotely possible if youre starting with a gigantic chunk of code to start with and that isn’t how it began. The code used to be very short and in that condition recombination of existing material isn’t sufficient on its own.
  
  “You'd have to argue free will is a bad thing to allow in of itself. Go ahead and argue that if you'd like”
  
  You missed the point or more likely deliberately avoided it to prevent having to address it. God made man knowing exactly what he would do every day of his life, including choosing to sin. So god created sinners, rapers, murders, robbers knowing that’s exactly what they would do when he made them. God put that stuff in the world because even though we were free to choose he created us knowing what choices his creations would make. God could have made people who didn’t rape or murder of steal but he didn’t, he made people knowing that is exactly what they would do. I personally don’t believe any of that garbage but those are the implications of a god who created us and everything and also knows everything.
  
  “We don't believe the book of Enoch”
  Ok so the council of nicea a bunch of roman guys decided what books to put in the final edition and what ones to leave out and that’s ok with you? Before the council enoch and other books were just as important to the community of believers but believe what you want I don’t really care I just think its funny youre not even interested in the origins of your holy text.
  
  “God uses his abilities selectively”
  
  God cant “use his ability (to know everything) selectively” and also know everything. The bible is very specific, god knows everything so claiming he doesn’t directly contradicts scripture, no way around it.
  
  “Fallacies upon fallacies, no matter how numerous don't make for a valid argument”
  And
  . Of now outdated information. That isn't going to do you any good. You need to get with the current understandings and not be so taken in by prestigious universities.
  
  Wow so you know better than Berkeley and doctors from Harvard? That’s an awfully high perch there bud, maybe you should back your arrogance up with some evidence because I hear lips flapping but not a lot of substance from your direction.
  
  “This fits in with a common designer. The evidence is overwhelming”
  
  Nested hierarchies. No proof of designer. Direct traceable ancestry of genes. Youre claiming that these well understood natural processes prove that a god designed something when they just don’t. There is nothing about the process or the material that requires a designer.
  
  “UC Irvine says otherwise”
  
  Your UC Irvine paper just shows that recombination of existing material by sexual reproduction leads to a lot of variation in a way that wasn’t well understood before now. That is not support for your crack pot claim that “all the new stuff must have been there by design in the first place” find a paper showing that claim because I haven’t seen anything yet even whispering in that direction.
  
  

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 29th, 2011

• “There is the answer in a can with no evidence just assertions”
  
  Would you like me to prove the sun comes up? How remedial do we have to be here?
  
  “according to Berkeley. The mechanism is NOT as you state”
  
  For crying out loud The Berkeley site says it’s a gradual process
  
  “Who is the Equus asinus now“
  
  You. Based on your lack of providing evidence for your views that fly in the face of the hard evidence and the way ive surgically dissected and refuted your attempts to ascribe supernatural causes to understood natural occurring processes.
  
  “you'd have to show its not instinctive”
  ON WHAT PLANET IS LEARNING AND COMMUNICATING IN SIGN LANGUAGE INSTINCTIVE???
  
  “We use DNA, its going to be similar”
  
  This is one of the core flaws in your understanding. The amount similar is directly related to how closely related by common ancestry two species are.
  
  “Does this mean he does exist? :D”
  Im not claiming to have an imaginary friend who created the universe so I have nothing to prove to anyone. The burden of proof is on the ones making the fantastical claims. Fantastical claims require fantastical evidence. Also since there is no evidence of a god ever interacting with the observable universe the only gap left to cram a god into is the big bang and that god is not the god of the bible by any stretch of the imagination.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 29th, 2011

• "Faulty logic again. God creates world therefore anything entering it is gods doing? How does that work? Ergo god is responsible for sin being in the world? Why? He didn't make the bad choice it was Adam. You are blaming God for the choices of Adam and Eve and Satan. This is not even close to logical."
  
  If you have a kid who you raise in a loving caring home then the the kid becomes evil is that your fault?
  
  
  Scientists were able to make fruit flies grow an extra set of wings using radiation. The extra set of wings screwed up the weight distribution of the flies. And there were no muscles or nerves connecting the muscles to the brains of the flies. This only proves that radiation caused mutations only harm organisms. I don't have a link for that but I remember reading about it.
  
  
  Can we all agree to limit our responses to no more than 3 paragraphs? This way everyone can give their 2 cents without having long replies and continues.... ...continues? Thanks

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 29th, 2011

• “If you have a kid who you raise in a loving caring home then the the kid becomes evil is that your fault”
  
  God has more control over the creation process than we do as people. God could have made people who wouldn’t want to sin.
  
  “This only proves that radiation caused mutations only harm organisms”
  
  Morphological changes like an extra set of wings are extremely uncommon and not what is usually meant by radiation caused mutations. Changes to individual base pairs is the scientific intentional use of the word mutation.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 29th, 2011

• "God has more control over the creation process than we do as people. God could have made people who wouldn’t want to sin."
  
  If God made a bunch of robots without freewill God would get pretty bored pretty quick. Wouldn't you? "Yes master, I obey", "Yes master, I obey", "Yes master, I obey"
  
  Personally I don't see how all the Bible talk is relevant in this discussion. While I believe, based on science, and what I have learned, that intelligence played some role in creation. Because we live in a western culture we automatically call it God.
  
  Any test to create artificial life or artificial intelligence requires a creator. We are close to creating artificial intelligence with computers however artificial life has proven to be a little more tricky. If artificial life is created by man it will prove it is only possible by intelligent design.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 29th, 2011

• “what I have learned, that intelligence played some role in creation”
  
  No one has ever been able to provide any evidence to that effect that withstands scientific scrutiny.
  
  “Any test to create artificial life or artificial intelligence requires a creator. We are close to creating artificial intelligence with computers however artificial life has proven to be a little more tricky. If artificial life is created by man it will prove it is only possible by intelligent design.”
  
  If humans are able to create artificial intelligence that does not prove human intelligence was intelligently designed.
  
  “If God made a bunch of robots without freewill God would get pretty bored pretty quick. Wouldn't you? "Yes master, I obey", "Yes master, I obey", "Yes master, I obey"”
  
  Why do people want to kill and rob and rape? Not everyone does but it happens often enough. God didn’t have to create the people who want to sin. God created the people who when presented with the choice to sin would decide to sin. God could have left those people out of the universe all together if he has such a problem with that sort of thing.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 29th, 2011

• "If humans are able to create artificial intelligence that does not prove human intelligence was intelligently designed."
  
  
  It may not but makes a strong argument in it's favor.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 29th, 2011

• “It may not but makes a strong argument in it's favor.”
  
  I don’t think so. I explained it like this earlier. Three rocks can end up in a row by chance or a person can put three rocks in a row. Just because a person can put three rocks in a row doesn’t imply or even remotely suggest that all instances of three rocks being in a row are by intelligent design. This analogy can be extended to the creation of artificial life or intelligence.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 29th, 2011

• One mans opinion
  
  I see you want only three paragraphs but I doubt this is possible with two subjects going on at the same time. In the past with other people I have asked for a limit of two comments and ONE subject... As you can see people rarely stick to that. Especially in conversations like this where if they were to follow this they would not have much to say since evidence is not on their side... Sorry bout that.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 30th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "Why do people want to kill and rob and rape? Not everyone does but it happens often enough. God didn’t have to create the people who want to sin. God created the people who when presented with the choice to sin would decide to sin. God could have left those people out of the universe all together if he has such a problem with that sort of thing."
  
  God could have created people without free will.... Yes... Free will is what you have to argue against, not the fact that people made bad choices and continue to do so. You are also not factoring in that, though people can make the wrong choice, they also can make the right choice. They don't HAVE to murder and rape. Since they don't HAVE to murder and rape its not in any way God's fault.
  
  Quote, "I don’t think so. I explained it like this earlier. Three rocks can end up in a row by chance or a person can put three rocks in a row. Just because a person can put three rocks in a row doesn’t imply or even remotely suggest that all instances of three rocks being in a row are by intelligent design. This analogy can be extended to the creation of artificial life or intelligence."
  
  But if those rocks say "Eat at Joe's" then you can bet it was human intelligence not chance.
  
  Now, onto your comments to me.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 30th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  I notice you are not focusing on any of my arguments and are not addressing the points. You are quoting a tiny part of what I say and proceeding with a rant or things that are irrelevant. Can you please focus a whole lot better on what is being said to you?
  
  Quote, "Do you even know what Fibonacci sequences and golden ratios are? A classic example is the spiral horn of a mountain goat. The horn grows according to a Fibonacci sequence and stays perfectly balanced no matter how large it grows. That always staying balanced is important because if it didn’t the goat would be having to relearn how to balance its whole life. Another example is the way branches are arranged on trees. No matter how big the tree gets it will always stay balanced thanks to arranging its branches according to a Fibonacci sequence."
  
  I know what Fibonacci is. Why are you explaining its advantage as if someone is disagreeing with it? Also, I am talking about its presence in DNA. That argument, along with the lack of laws to account for the arrangement of information, is what is being said. Your explanation is irrelevant.
  
  Quote, "So there is an advantage to Fibonacci sequences that nature can select in the competitive natural selection process. That in absolutely no way proves a designer or a god. Sorry to break it to you but you are going to have to try again or try harder."
  
  The fact that something is beneficial and can be selected by nature does not therefore mean it was nature that arranged DNA. You need to try harder to understand the argument. I'm concerned that you still don't understand. You examples have to address the actual argument.
  
  Quote, "You seem to think that since Dna contains instructions for building proteins that its somehow supernatural but that just isn’t true."
  
  Super physical, but OK... And thats the whole point of this conversation. You seem to think it is not, yet, you continue to fail to offer anything in the way of evidence that is plausible and negates, by its plausibility, the arguments for an uncaused cause.
  
  Quote, "Sure the dna of complex organisms is crazy huge and complicated but it got that way by gradually building up small changes and additions over billions of years."
  
  Well thats exactly what you have to show and you are not. We get your assertions already. We don't need to hear "how its supposed to happen" with the standard answers in a can. We need to see or hear your argument. You need to present a case. You have to address an issue after you make the case when its challenged and debunked. In other words, you need to try harder, much harder, instead of making the same "it could happen by chance" assertions.
  
  Quote, "Its not a mystery and it doesn’t prove that a god is involved or designed anything. Sorry but youre going to have to try again or try harder."
  
  Well if its not a mystery, it sure is a mystery why you don't offer any plausible arguments.
  
  Quote, "The first life was very simple compared even to single celled organisms and I referenced work by Dr. Szostak of HARVARD explaining the EXACT CHEMICAL PROCESS that probably led to the first formation of life."
  
  The EXACT CHEMICAL PROCESS that probably? When you use the word "probably" you shouldn't put in caps EXACT. Hopefully you understand that much... Secondly, that video was showing the accumulation of fatty acids. That is a far cry from information to make proteins... I don't think you understand what that means. The accumulation of something is not the same as the arrangement of something where no laws account for the arrangement. There are chemical processes that account for accumulation of fatty acids but none for DNA holding the information as information to make proteins. If we challenged accumulation, you'd have a point, but, we didn't. Try again.
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 30th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Quote, "As it turns out there are no extreme low probability events even required completely shattering the oft repeated creationist claim that only an act of god could account for such a thing. So again sorry but that’s three tries and so far youre coming up short so lets see what you have next."
  
  The only thing you have done is misunderstood what the video showed. I provided a link on the chemical laws and another on how peptides form for Mr. Natural. Perhaps you didn't read it since it was for him. But here it is just for you.
  
  "The formation of peptides is nothing more than the application of the amide synthesis reaction. By convention, the amide bond in the peptides should be made in the order that the amino acids are written. The amine end (N terminal) of an amino acid is always on the left, while the acid end (C terminal) is on the right."
  http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/564peptide.html
  
  Get it? Things can form and we know these processes but there is NO law for the arrangement of information. Rocks can fall from up on high and we know this to be gravity but when they spell "Eat at Joe's" you can see that the most likely cause was an intelligence. You cannot deny this.
  
  Quote, "And the movement of stars in the sky needed a cause and can you guesse what cause people assumed was responsible in the absence of actual evidence? O that’s right gods. It’s the same old story again with the big bang."
  
  No, you've misunderstood. The argument is what we can infer about effects and logic requiring an uncaused cause. If you read it slowly, it has less to do with the cause of the Big Bang and more to do with cause and effect, time and logic. That was the point.
  
  Quote, "Just like with the movement of the stars there is no evidence that god has anything to do with the cause of the big bang but it’s a dark spot in our testable information due to our current technical limitations."
  
  Great, so now you argue from ignorance? You misunderstood the argument and proceed to counter with a fallacy... Read the argument slowly. You understood my argument to be a "God of the Gaps" fallacy, which it was not. When "God of the Gaps" is used people usually use an "argument from ignorance" or vice versa. They essentially cancel each other out. When this happens you need positive evidence... I gave positive evidence from what we know of physics and logic. A God of the gaps was NOT what I offered.
  
  Quote, "So interjecting your god into that gap doesn’t prove that god exists, at best it just throws out the possibility that a god could have been a cause"
  
  No, my argument was not a gap it was a logical deduction. Read it again. Get past the Big Bang, that was only to show evidence for the physical not existing and effects needing a cause that was not material in origin. And there was more, read it.
  
  Quote, "Its more likely that the universe has more dimensions than the four we traditionally deal with and interactions in those extra dimensions gave rise to the expansion of our universe. That’s the cutting edge of physics astronomy research if you cared to know. But if you insist on your god of the gaps argument that’s fine but it fails the test of providing any testable evidence that a god exists."
  
  So what testable evidence are you referring to that says four dimensions is more likely? BTW its 11 dimensions, when did it drop down to four?
  
  Quote, "If your non physical god interacts with the physical universe then that interaction will alter the physical universe in some way. It has to otherwise there would be no interacting with our universe. Even if it just pushes some atoms around or whatever there should be something."
  
  DNA. That had to be arranged... There is physical evidence that an intelligent being arranged this information. There are no laws that can do this type of arrangement.
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 30th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Quote, "When a piece of dna is being copied and instead of going abcde instead goes abcbde because of a copy mistake that is information being added. Thanks for playing try again. O and that abcbde can get hit by radiation causing a mutation leading to abbde, and that can get copied wrong leading to abble and that can be hit by radiation leading to able. But wait able is a name so that’s definitely proof that god made it right? See how laughable that is when you actually understand how the copy mistake mutation process works?"
  
  OK this was your best response so far. I like! However, changing the arrangement via a mutation is not adding anything in the way of information. Its a malfunction of the process but not really information. To illustrate: Suppose you have a printing press making dictionaries. At some point the machine malfunctions and a letter is replaced. No new information has been created only a distortion of information.
  
  BTW, I do see where you are going with it on the little scale. But to really be "new" information you'd have to show a function that was new. Mutations don't do that in the way you are thinking and have been told. They only distort information that was there and cause something to be more expressed as far as genes go. The problem is recombination and switches that make those genes function the way they do already account for this type of things without mutations.
  
  Quote, "Novel new pieces of code can account for additions to the genetic code due to copy mistakes and radiation but recombination of existing material also can create novel new pieces of code too."
  
  Replacement and addition are two different things. Mutations replace and recombination rearranges. Neither seems to add.
  
  Quote, "But to say that recombination can account for everything is only remotely possible if youre starting with a gigantic chunk of code to start with and that isn’t how it began."
  
  Sorry, but, thats what the information suggests very strongly.
  
  Quote, "The code used to be very short and in that condition recombination of existing material isn’t sufficient on its own."
  
  This is the belief but as of yet no one can offer any positive evidence for this assertion in any way remotely plausible... That the code was very short that is, from which we supposedly share a common ancestor or was our ancestor...
  
  Quote, "You missed the point or more likely deliberately avoided it to prevent having to address it. God made man knowing exactly what he would do every day of his life, including choosing to sin....I personally don’t believe any of that garbage but those are the implications of a god who created us and everything and also knows everything."
  
  No. You missed the point when NICK and I said his foreknowledge is selective. That is how we addressed it. You'd have to argue against that and argue against free will. Remember I gave an example of a even humans using their power (strength) selectively. Having an ability and using it to the a certain degree is not hard to comprehend.
  
  Quote, "Ok so the council of nicea a bunch of roman guys decided what books to put in the final edition and what ones to leave out and that’s ok with you? Before the council enoch and other books were just as important to the community of believers but believe what you want I don’t really care I just think its funny youre not even interested in the origins of your holy text."
  
  Of course we are interested, we are Jehovah's Witnesses. We study this type of thing. And it is precisely why we don't believe in the book of Enoch. It lack harmony and authenticity. BTW we are not the only ones who feel this way about the book of Enoch.
  
  ...cont

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 30th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Quote, "God cant “use his ability (to know everything) selectively” and also know everything. The bible is very specific, god knows everything so claiming he doesn’t directly contradicts scripture, no way around it."
  
  The bible also says he is all powerful but does that mean he must therefore use all his power whenever he does something? No, it does not. You are making a false dichotomy.
  
  Quote, "Wow so you know better than Berkeley and doctors from Harvard? That’s an awfully high perch there bud, maybe you should back your arrogance up with some evidence because I hear lips flapping but not a lot of substance from your direction."
  
  I didn't write the UC Irvine paper. Whether or not Berkeley is prestigious and you are seem to be taken in by it has no bearing on whether it is up to date or not. The fact remains the current understanding by the masses is and was patently false. Substance is what you are not providing, rants is what I continue to hear. Address the UC Irvine research or concede.
  
  Quote, "Nested hierarchies. No proof of designer. Direct traceable ancestry of genes. Youre claiming that these well understood natural processes prove that a god designed something when they just don’t. There is nothing about the process or the material that requires a designer."
  
  You can't just say that. You realize you are not offering any rebuttals to anything that has been shown to you? Take a look back and relax... Notice how all you do is rant while actual research papers have been cited to kill your examples of evolution you copied from Talk origins, arguments have been given you both deductive and inductive, you changed the subject to talk about religion instead of science and many other tangents imbedded in your responses. Do you really think you are doing anything other than copy paste jobs, youtube lessons and rants?
  
  Quote, "Your UC Irvine paper just shows that recombination of existing material by sexual reproduction leads to a lot of variation in a way that wasn’t well understood before now. That is not support for your crack pot claim that “all the new stuff must have been there by design in the first place” find a paper showing that claim because I haven’t seen anything yet even whispering in that direction."
  
  What? My UC Irvine paper "just shows recombination for things of existing material by sexual reproduction leads to a lot of variation in a way that wasn’t well understood before now"? First off its not MY paper and secondly it trashed the previous understandings of evolution. Did you not read it?
  "The findings, reported in the Sept. 15 online issue of Nature, contradict the long-held belief that sexual beings evolve the same way simpler organisms do and could fundamentally alter the direction of genetic research for new pharmaceuticals and other products."
  http://today.uci.edu/news/2010/09/nr_Fruitflies_100916.php
  
  “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology & evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator."
  http://today.uci.edu/news/2010/09/nr_Fruitflies_100916.php
  
  In other words, you're wrong...
  
  Quote, "That is not support for your crack pot claim that “all the new stuff must have been there by design in the first place” find a paper showing that claim because I haven’t seen anything yet even whispering in that direction."
  
  shhhh... you here that...? "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve,” said ecology & evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator" Its a whisper in that direction.
  
  Quote, "Would you like me to prove the sun comes up? How remedial do we have to be here?"
  
  Don't be silly, trick are for kids. :P
  You made an assertion and you need to back it up. Or concede.
  
  ...cont

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 30th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Quote, "For crying out loud The Berkeley site says it’s a gradual process"
  
  The rate at which a mechanism operates is not the mechanism. We are interested in the mechanism. The Berkeley site says the mechanism is gradual, not that the mechanism itself. Do you understand what that means?
  
  Quote, "You. Based on your lack of providing evidence for your views that fly in the face of the hard evidence and the way ive surgically dissected and refuted your attempts to ascribe supernatural causes to understood natural occurring processes."
  
  OK this is embarrassing for me to watch you say this. Seriously? Emotional rants, side stepping issues, misunderstandings of what you yourself cite, youtube lessons and copy paste jobs from Talk origins is what you call "surgically dissected and refuted your attempts to ascribe supernatural causes to understood natural occurring processes"? LOL!!! That was a good one... But seriously, you need to be more logical here kid.
  
  Quote, "Im not claiming to have an imaginary friend who created the universe so I have nothing to prove to anyone. The burden of proof is on the ones making the fantastical claims. Fantastical claims require fantastical evidence."
  
  Waiting on the fantastic evidence life was a result of chance or natural laws...
  
  Quote, "Also since there is no evidence of a god ever interacting with the observable universe the only gap left to cram a god into is the big bang and that god is not the god of the bible by any stretch of the imagination."
  
  DNA. Just because you say it "could' happen without intelligence does not make it so. Were is that fantastic evidence?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 30th, 2011

• I just have time to read some of your comments today, will come back.
  
  One Mans's Opinion: You said:
  
  "If you have a kid who you raise in a loving caring home then the the kid becomes evil is that your fault?"
  
  That is exactly what the Bible says!
  
  Ecclesiastes 7:29 says that “God made mankind upright, but they themselves have sought out many plans.”

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on June 30th, 2011

• “God could have created people without free will.... Yes... Free will is what you have to argue against, not the fact that people made bad choices and continue to do so. You are also not factoring in that, though people can make the wrong choice, they also can make the right choice. They don't HAVE to murder and rape. Since they don't HAVE to murder and rape its not in any way God's fault.”
  
  Not creating people who would choose to rape rob or murder wouldn’t mean that the people created wouldn’t have the ability to do those things. Again you missed the point or are being stubborn in dodging the issue because you realize im right and you cant avoid it.
  
  “But if those rocks say "Eat at Joe's" then you can bet it was human intelligence not chance.”
  
  The rocks don’t say “eat at joes” they don’t imply any intelligence. They are complex but there is a natural explanation for that complexity and there isn’t anything about it that implies intelligence in its structure. You keep insisting that there is something about the situation that proves design but you haven’t provided one single scrap of evidence to back up your belief. And your belief is flying in the face of the scientific evidence so I think you owe it to me and yourself to al least cite a credible source proving intelligent design.
  
  “I notice you are not focusing on any of my arguments and are not addressing the points. You are quoting a tiny part of what I say and proceeding with a rant or things that are irrelevant. Can you please focus a whole lot better on what is being said to you?”
  
  I quote a snip of the paragraph to make clear what im addressing. Not quoting your wall of text is a way to save space, these responses are already running long. I have addressed your points exhaustively. You aren’t addressing my points though. I keep asking you to provide evidence of your crackpot creationist fantasies but all you do is flap your lips without providing any substance.
  
  “I am talking about its presence in DNA. That argument, along with the lack of laws to account for the arrangement of information”
  
  It is present in the dna because its an good adaption that provides a distinct advantage in a competitive environment and was selected by the natural selection process after its emergence. If you understood why dna has the structure it does and quit with your dillusion that all the information was there from the beginning then your issue with dna having the information to make proteins wouldn’t be a mystery to you. But since you insist on believing (in spite of no evidence) that all the information for an organisms entire evolutionary path was present from its creation that would be mysterious. You need to shed your false beliefs that are based on no evidence and embrace the evidence and suddenly these “mysterious” problems you have with evolution go away. There are only “mysterious things that can only be explained by ID” because you are claiming stuff about life that isn’t true and isn’t based on any evidence.
  
  “The fact that something is beneficial and can be selected by nature does not therefore mean it was nature that arranged DNA. You need to try harder to understand the argument. I'm concerned that you still don't understand. You examples have to address the actual argument.”
  
  There is no evidence that even suggests Intelligent design. Find even one paper about Fibonacci sequences in a peer reviewed journal that hints at intelligent design before you go spreading your creation myths around like facts.
  
  “Super physical, but OK... And thats the whole point of this conversation. You seem to think it is not, yet, you continue to fail to offer anything in the way of evidence that is plausible and negates, by its plausibility, the arguments for an uncaused cause”
  Ok so this has been CONFIRMED in Dr. Jack Szostak's LAB. 2009 Nobel Laurette in medicine. Here is a summary of his work in a short video and

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 30th, 2011

• Ok so this has been CONFIRMED in Dr. Jack Szostak's LAB. 2009 Nobel Laurette in medicine. Here is a summary of his work in a short video and here is a link to more information.
  
  http://exploringorigins.org
  
  Now unless you’ve got some nobel laurettes work stashed away youd like to show I suggest you have the decency to acknowledge reality.
  
  “Well thats exactly what you have to show and you are not. We get your assertions already. We don't need to hear "how its supposed to happen" with the standard answers in a can. We need to see or hear your argument. You need to present a case. You have to address an issue after you make the case when its challenged and debunked. In other words, you need to try harder, much harder, instead of making the same "it could happen by chance" assertions.”
  
  SEE ABOVE
  “Well if its not a mystery, it sure is a mystery why you don't offer any plausible arguments.”
  
  SEE ABOVE
  
  “The EXACT CHEMICAL PROCESS that probably? When you use the word "probably" you shouldn't put in caps EXACT. Hopefully you understand that much... Secondly, that video was showing the accumulation of fatty acids. That is a far cry from information to make proteins... I don't think you understand what that means. The accumulation of something is not the same as the arrangement of something where no laws account for the arrangement. There are chemical processes that account for accumulation of fatty acids but none for DNA holding the information as information to make proteins. If we challenged accumulation, you'd have a point, but, we didn't. Try again.”
  
  SEE ABOVE NOBEL LAURETTE CONFERMED IN THE LAB
  
  “The only thing you have done is misunderstood what the video showed. I provided a link on the chemical laws and another on how peptides form for Mr. Natural. Perhaps you didn't read it since it was for him. But here it is just for you.”
  
  SEE ABOVE AND IF YOU DISAGREE GO FIND A PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE IN A SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL OR HAVE THE DECENCY NOT TO SPREAD YOUR CREATIONIST MYTHS AS IF THEY WERE BASED ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN FANTASYS
  
  “"The formation of peptides is nothing more than the application of the amide synthesis reaction. By convention, the amide bond in the peptides should be made in the order that the amino acids are written. The amine end (N terminal) of an amino acid is always on the left, while the acid end (C terminal) is on the right."
  http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/564peptide.html”
  
  Irrelevant SEE ABOVE WAS PROVED IN A LAB BY NOBEL LAURETTE
  
  
  “Get it? Things can form and we know these processes but there is NO law for the arrangement of information. Rocks can fall from up on high and we know this to be gravity but when they spell "Eat at Joe's" you can see that the most likely cause was an intelligence. You cannot deny this.”
  
  Information is an abstract concept. What the DNA does is make proteins and it wasn’t “designed” to do what it does. It got the way it is by an understood natural non supernatural process that does not require new laws or bending the rules of physics. The absence of a law of science that explains how information could be arranged doesn’t even rall into the category of relevant to the conversation.
  
  SEE THE ABOVE NOBEL LAURETTE WORK THAT WAS VERIFIED IN A LAB AND PROVIDE SOME PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES TO BACK UP YOUR CREATIONIST PROPOGANDA OR HAVE THE DECENCY TO ADMIT ITS JUST FICTION.
  
  “No, you've misunderstood. The argument is what we can infer about effects and logic requiring an uncaused cause. If you read it slowly, it has less to do with the cause of the Big Bang and more to do with cause and effect, time and logic. That was the point. “
  
  I misunderstood nothing. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR WHAT YOU ARE SUDGESTING AND I WAN

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 30th, 2011

• I misunderstood nothing. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR WHAT YOU ARE SUDGESTING AND I WANT YOU TO GO FIND SOME EVIDENCE OR A PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE BACKING UP YOUR CREATION FANSASYS.
  
  “Great, so now you argue from ignorance? You misunderstood the argument and proceed to counter with a fallacy... Read the argument slowly. You understood my argument to be a "God of the Gaps" fallacy, which it was not. When "God of the Gaps" is used people usually use an "argument from ignorance" or vice versa. They essentially cancel each other out. When this happens you need positive evidence... I gave positive evidence from what we know of physics and logic. A God of the gaps was NOT what I offered.”
  
  SEE ABOVE
  
  “No, my argument was not a gap it was a logical deduction. Read it again. Get past the Big Bang, that was only to show evidence for the physical not existing and effects needing a cause that was not material in origin. And there was more, read it.”
  
  SEE ABOVE
  
  “So what testable evidence are you referring to that says four dimensions is more likely? BTW its 11 dimensions, when did it drop down to four? “
  
  The fourth dimension is time, go see general relativity if you don’t understand. In spite of string theories about extra dimensions being un testable due to our technological limitations at least they are based on mathematical models that theoretically can expand our understanding. Its that or we refer to the book about unicorns witches talking donkeys and people living in fish for three days in order to determine the answers to our scientific inquiries. Maybe if you concentrate really hard your imaginary friend will give you the answers.
  
  “DNA. That had to be arranged... There is physical evidence that an intelligent being arranged this information. There are no laws that can do this type of arrangement. “
  
  Dna did not “have to be arranged” and there is NO evidence that “an intelligent being arranged” the information. PROVIDE A DAMN PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR YOUR GARBAGE CREATIONIST MYTHS AND FANTASYS.
  
  “OK this was your best response so far. I like! However, changing the arrangement via a mutation is not adding anything in the way of information. Its a malfunction of the process but not really information. To illustrate: Suppose you have a printing press making dictionaries. At some point the machine malfunctions and a letter is replaced. No new information has been created only a distortion of information. “
  
  That’s exactly how “information” gets added. Those “malfunctions of the process” are what adds the information. You can rearrange whats there and get novel stuff but to add to the entire pool its exactly those “malfunctions” that do the work over billions of years to get to what weve got now. The Information pool was so small initially that rearranging what it started with could not lead to what exists now. PROVIDE A PIECE OF EVIDENCE THAT THE WHOLE OF THE INFORMATION CURRENTLY THERE NOW WAS THERE FOR THE START. SEE THE WORK OF THE NOBEL LAURETTE. Its your own demand that the genetic code have been gigantic from the start, not mine or that of any scientist with published peer reviewed articles. And if youre right that would demand an explanation for creation of life requiring or implying intelligence. But you aren’t right and you wont find an article because it’s a crackpot theory that isn’t based on reality and has no evidence to support it.
  
  “BTW, I do see where you are going with it on the little scale. But to really be "new" information you'd have to show a function that was new. Mutations don't do that in the way you are thinking and have been told. They only distort information that was there and cause something to be more expressed as far as genes go. The problem is recombination and switches that make those genes function the way they do already account for this type of things without mutations.”
  
  SEE ABOVE
  
  “Replacement and addition are two different things. Mu

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 30th, 2011

• “Replacement and addition are two different things. Mutations replace and recombination rearranges. Neither seems to add.”
  
  Copy mistakes can add or replace.
  
  “Sorry, but, thats what the information suggests very strongly. “
  
  REFER YOU TO WORK OF NOBEL LAURETTE VERIFIED IN THE LAB AND IF YOU DISAGREE FIND PEER REVIEWED ARTICE OR ADMIT YOUR FANTASYS ABOUT CREATION ARE NOT BASED ON ANYTHING BUT YOUR DELUSIONS.
  “This is the belief but as of yet no one can offer any positive evidence for this assertion in any way remotely plausible... That the code was very short that is, from which we supposedly share a common ancestor or was our ancestor...”
  
  REFER YOU TO WORK OF NOBEL LAURETTE VERIFIED IN THE LAB
  
  “No. You missed the point when NICK and I said his foreknowledge is selective. That is how we addressed it. You'd have to argue against that and argue against free will. Remember I gave an example of a even humans using their power (strength) selectively. Having an ability and using it to the a certain degree is not hard to comprehend”
  
  Either god knows everything LIKE THE BIBLE EXACTLY SAYS HE DOES or he doesn’t and the bible isn’t worth the paper its printed on. See above.
  
  “Of course we are interested, we are Jehovah's Witnesses. We study this type of thing. And it is precisely why we don't believe in the book of Enoch. It lack harmony and authenticity. BTW we are not the only ones who feel this way about the book of Enoch.”
  
  Don’t really care.
  
  “The bible also says he is all powerful but does that mean he must therefore use all his power whenever he does something? No, it does not. You are making a false dichotomy.”
  
  The bible doesn’t say he has the power to know everything it says HE KNOWS EVERYTHING. Those are two very different ideas but continue your apologetics for your self refuting book if it makes you happy I can do this forever.
  
  “I didn't write the UC Irvine paper. Whether or not Berkeley is prestigious and you are seem to be taken in by it has no bearing on whether it is up to date or not. The fact remains the current understanding by the masses is and was patently false. Substance is what you are not providing, rants is what I continue to hear. Address the UC Irvine research or concede.”
  
  I already addressed the uc Irvine paper specifically a couple times and most recently in my last post. That paper doesn’t prove or suggest anything youre attempting to assert.
  
  “You can't just say that. You realize you are not offering any rebuttals to anything that has been shown to you? Take a look back and relax... Notice how all you do is rant while actual research papers have been cited to kill your examples of evolution you copied from Talk origins, arguments have been given you both deductive and inductive, you changed the subject to talk about religion instead of science and many other tangents imbedded in your responses. Do you really think you are doing anything other than copy paste jobs, youtube lessons and rants?”
  
  Go check out the Berkeley site that I linked to you if you don’t know the specifics. Its not my fault you don’t know this remedial stuff about the basics. NOBEL LAURETTE PROVED IN THE LAB AND NO PAPERS TO DATE TO SUPPORT YOUR CREATIONIST FANTASYS
  
  “First off its not MY paper”
  No shit Sherlock
  “secondly it trashed the previous understandings of evolution”
  It didn’t. It cleared up our understanding of some specifics. Literally nothing about that discovery should have been surprising. You are attempting to claim that that article proves some crack pot creationist theory that isn’t even mentioned.
  
  “In other words, you're wrong...”
  In other words youre wrong. Just because a few of the finer details got refined and that led to a shift in understanding about the processes involved didn’t invalidate the entire process. Don’t be fooled by the sensationalist headlines and titles what was discovered may have been significant but it shouldn�

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 30th, 2011

• “In other words, you're wrong...”
  
  In other words youre wrong. Just because a few of the finer details got refined and that led to a shift in understanding about the processes involved didn’t invalidate the entire process. Don’t be fooled by the sensationalist headlines and titles what was discovered may have been significant but it shouldn’t have come as a surprise and it doesn’t invalidate evolution and it DOES NOT prove any of your creationist crack pot theories.
  
  “This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve”
  Yeah because the process of sexual recombination contributes more that originally thought to the diversification of alleles in species populations. That is a big deal. But it doesn’t mean anything remotely close to your creationist crack pot theories.
  
  “more logical here kid.”
  YOU cant come up with a SINGLE PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE TO SUPPORT YOUR POSITION! Youre the one being unbelievably closed minded and ridiculous.
  
  “Waiting on the fantastic evidence life was a result of chance or natural laws”
  
  SEE WORK BY NOBEL LAURETTE VERIFIED IN THE LAB
  PROVIDE PEER REVIEDED ARTICLES EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CREATIONIST CRACKPOT FANSASYS
  
  PROVIDE PEER REVIEDED ARTICLES EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CREATIONIST CRACKPOT FANSASYS
  
  PROVIDE PEER REVIEDED ARTICLES EVIDENCE FOR YOUR CREATIONIST CRACKPOT FANSASYS

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 30th, 2011

• "Quote, "I don’t think so. I explained it like this earlier. Three rocks can end up in a row by chance or a person can put three rocks in a row. Just because a person can put three rocks in a row doesn’t imply or even remotely suggest that all instances of three rocks being in a row are by intelligent design. This analogy can be extended to the creation of artificial life or intelligence."
  
  But if those rocks say "Eat at Joe's" then you can bet it was human intelligence not chance."
  
  Can the rocks end up in a row 10 miles long, perfectly straight pointing North to South? 3 rocks landing in a row is more than plausible. How about 10,000?
  
  
  That video offers a good theory. If all it takes is the right combination of pH, chemicals, heat why hasn't this guy created life yet? Miller and Urey used lightning to get the amino acids but this video leaves it out. Also the video neglected to mention how the product finally turn into actual cells.
  
  And can you all PLEASE shorten your answers. I don't like turning my computer on and finding 25 responses each 2 pages long that I need to read through.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 30th, 2011

• “Can the rocks end up in a row 10 miles long, perfectly straight pointing North to South? 3 rocks landing in a row is more than plausible. How about 10,000?”
  
  The video explains why that question is irrelevant. No one is suggesting that life started by metaphorically speaking having ten thousand rocks suddenly line up in a row.
  
  “If all it takes is the right combination of pH, chemicals, heat why hasn't this guy created life yet?”
  
  This guy verified his theory in the lab by having this exact thing happen under controlled conditions so you could say he did create life. However some people would say that doesn’t count as life because its not like the modern life today. It is the precursor to our life and if you left it alone in the natural conditions for a few billion years it would probably be a lot more what we are familiar with. And no one even cares about proving that organic molecules can be created in a lab anymore. They found organic molecules in comets and asteroids from deep solar orbit so that’s not even important or relevant anymore.
  
  “Also the video neglected to mention how the product finally turn into actual cells”
  Actually it does. The section starts with something like “how does this become life” at 5 min 40 sec. And lists advantageous adaptations that would lead to something similar to what we know as modern cells. Its all in the video and on the site.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on June 30th, 2011

• How long did it take to get that far in the laboratory?

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on June 30th, 2011

• The same ol youtube video? Well that didn't take long. When in doubt, just post a video, its OK if its not relevant. Just tell the guy you are arguing with its a noble laureate and use caps to make the fallacious 'CALL TO AUTHORITY" stick! LOL.
  
  It seems you have run out of options and can't come up with anything. I see you are getting crankier... You must feel helpless, all this time, thinking scientist really had evidence for what you believed.
  
  I'll respond maybe tomorrow night or the next day. I have the peer reviewed article on ID in front of me but I want to read it well before I post the link.
  
  I will get to the video you keep posting as well. I suppose I could just paste what we went over in private, but, I think you wanna see more.
  
  Do try and have a better day. See ya soon!
  
  Good night all! :D

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on June 30th, 2011

• @NOS
  
  Lets see your "peer reviewed article on ID". That will be the FIRST piece of evidence youve even attempted to provide. You do not know better than nobel prize winner Dr. Jack Szostak and unless youvve got peer reviewed articles refuting his work your opinions on his work are meaningless. I fully anticipate you will see flaws in his work and missunderstand his work and reject his work but unless you can proveide peer reviewed articles overturning his work then you are just a layman and your opinion is worthless.
  
  Why Answers Research Journal does not count as a valid peer-reviewed journal. In their own words they admit they are a biased publication, and therefore, they lack objectivity and credibility. Here are their own words:
  
  The following criteria will be used in judging papers: 1. Is the papers topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?... 3. Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework? 4. If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?... The editor-in-chief will not be afraid to reject a paper if it does not properly satisfy the above criteria or it conflicts with the best interests of AiG as judged by its biblical stand and goals outlined in its statement of faith.
  
  
  And yes im making a call to authority because in this case its highly appropriate. Ive tried reasoning with you but youre stuborn and closed minded and you reject logic and evidence and reason in favor of your fantasys.
  
  Link to proof he actually won the nobel prize http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2009/
  
  link to the dozens of published articles related
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html
  
  where he works now
  http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/faculty/szostak
  
  dozens more peer reviewed articles
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=search&db=pubmed&term=Szostak JW[au]&dispmax=20
  
  In the Dover trial, the judge found that intelligent design features no scientific research or testing. The dover trial proved in court that intelligent design is creationism and therefore cant be taught in the class. In his ruling, the judge wrote: "A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory".
  
  ADMIT YOUR CREATIONIST FANTASYS ARE GARBAGE

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 1st, 2011

• Gillaspy, even if you win this argument, what do you really win? Why would I want to be like you? What hope do you offer? Can it even compare to replace what we have? I know what God's Word the Bible offers? What do you offer? Science does not even attempt to answer the questions the Bible addresses either. It seems you are putting all your hope and trust in something that is merely hypothetical at best. All you can do is shout "garbage" when you have nothing better. All your belittling doesn't help your case. It just makes me no longer want to participate in dialogue like this.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 1st, 2011

• Nick
  Every day I see on the news and hear people talking about how they are certain that these are the end times and that the world will end soon. They sit on their hands as the environment is decimated because whats the point? The bible says the world was created for us to use and abuse for our pleasure, or at least that’s how its been applied. The conflicts between Israel and its neighbors is egged on by the religious who believe that the end battle is a fight between the jews and the muslims. The whole thing is spiraling out of control because we have people who believe this garbage with their hands on the levers that are screwing us all over. This fight isn’t about you and me, its about all of us and making choices based on reality not fantasy. Humanity has amazing potential but we need to address our challenges with the blunt harshness of reality in order to solve them. Whatever benefits of the religion that there are (feeling better about one self ect…) are far outweighed by the negative baggage that comes with them. In my opinion we don’t need gods to give us direction or meaning. All the direction and meaning anyone will ever need is in the eyes of their loved ones and the joy of working for the common good of all mankind.
  
  “All you can do is shout "garbage" when you have nothing better”
  
  O so now the documented work of a Nobel laureate is worth nothing? That’s part of the problem. Anything that contradicts the two thousand year old book with talking donkeys unicorns witches and people living in fish for three days is immediately declared worthless by you people no matter how reliable it is. All ive been shown in support of a gods existence and intelligent design amounts to nothing but garbage. Ive not found in any of it any credible evidence of either. Thats part of the blunt confrontation with reality that our species is desperately in need of.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 1st, 2011

• "O so now the documented work of a Nobel laureate is worth nothing?"
  
  Need I point out that US President Obama won the Nobel Price when he didn't do a darn thing.
  
  As I said earlier being able to create the precursors to life in a laboratory only proves that it requires the intelligence of the scientists to carefully monitor and supervise the experiment. Lets see them find abiogensis occurring in nature, with random variables at play instead of a controlled environment.
  
  If the Jews and Muslims were true believers of their religions there would be peace. The news keeps saying that the terrorists are following a radical interpretation of Islam. If everyone was a true believer of their own religion the world would have peace. I am not familiar with all the world religions but do know that the Bible commands that we be stewards of the earth meaning that we are to take care of the earth.
  
  Having a religion is hardly garbage. There are countless scientists who are believers. A good book to read is "Men of Science Men of God" You might be surprised who is included in the book.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 1st, 2011

• Nicely said OMO. Gillaspy, I don't know where you even begin to perceive "The bible says the world was created for us to use and abuse for our pleasure or at least that’s how its been applied"???
  Choose to believe what you will, but at least be accurate in your representation of what the Bible does and does not endorse. When you do not it just weakens your case even more.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 1st, 2011

• “Need I point out that US President Obama won the Nobel Price when he didn't do a darn thing.”
  
  The Nobel prize in medicine is taken a lot more seriously. Even if it didn’t the work still stands on its own.
  
  “being able to create the precursors to life in a laboratory only proves that it requires the intelligence of the scientists to carefully monitor and supervise the experiment.”
  
  The lab replicates the environment in nature where those conditions naturally occur.
  
  “If the Jews and Muslims were true believers of their religions there would be peace”
  
  It’s the “true believers” who seem most rabidly seeking war to fulfill end times prophesies. Or at least they think of themselves as the true believers.
  
  “the Bible commands that we be stewards of the earth meaning that we are to take care of the earth”
  
  That doesn’t seem to be the working interpretation and all you have to do is look around you to see that. And look at the republicans, simotaniously calling for the end of the EPA (michele bachmann in the last debate) and touting their hollier than thou bible thumping god is my guide crap.
  
  “Having a religion is hardly garbage.”
  
  Fill your head with whatever you want but don’t make decisions that involve others based on your un provable fantasies.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 2nd, 2011

• OK gilaspy, I have done some research and read quite a few articles. But before we get into the details, I'd like to get clarification on what you feel the video is showing.
  
  You say "SEE ABOVE" over and over to things that don't have much of anything to do with the paragraphs you quote of me and then write "SEE ABOVE THIS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED".
  
  So I ask you: What has been confirmed?
  
  
  
  Trust me, its not what you think has been confirmed. In fact, the thing I've been saying, that the information needs to be arranged is still relevant. Just answer the question: What has been confirmed?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 2nd, 2011

• Nick and One Man's Opinion
  
  Here is something for your viewing pleasure: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SU7VZD6ts20C&oi=fnd&pg=PA174&dq=Stephen+C.+Meyer&ots=RowdxN6BbO&sig=hBzDr2n0MQmXJ86sGz5RTIeRhk0#v=onepage&q=Stephen C. Meyer&f=false
  
  Scroll down to the last paragraph on page 195 and the rest of the paragraph on page 196.
  
  (shhhh, its peer reviewed)

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 3rd, 2011

• "Fill your head with whatever you want but don’t make decisions that involve others based on your un provable fantasies."
  
  As far as I can tell we've proven our case. You're the one living the fantasy. We have all seen the evils atheists have done. Clearly atheism is not the answer either.
  
  If everyone followed the Golden Rule the world would be a better place. I doubt you can dispute this.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 3rd, 2011

• Proven your case? When? I've yet to see one shred of credible evidence from you, throughout this long and rambling thread, although, to be entirely honest, I got bored and wandered off a couple of times, purely because you've not produced any information I've not seen a hundred times before from a hundred other theists.
  You are no more or less evil than anyone else, claiming that atheism is evil is ridiculous and naive, to think that you are more morally upright than anyone outside your religious fraternity is arrogant in the extreme, either that or you are simply a troll.
  Either way, same old, same old, boring.
  Produce a fact to substantiate your beliefs.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on July 3rd, 2011

• “Here is something for your viewing pleasure: http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SU7VZD6ts20C&oi=fnd&pg=PA174&dq=Stephen+C.+Meyer&ots=RowdxN6BbO&sig=hBzDr2n0MQmXJ86sGz5RTIeRhk0#v=onepage&q=Stephen C. Meyer&f=false
  
  Scroll down to the last paragraph on page 195 and the rest of the paragraph on page 196.
  
  (shhhh, its peer reviewed)”
  
  These people write books instead of publishing in peer reviewed scientific journals because they know none of their hack pseudo science would make it into a real peer reviewed science journal. Anyone can publish a book that says anything they want, that’s why getting published in a peer reviewed journal is important. So no, it isn’t peer reviewed.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 3rd, 2011

• “What has been confirmed?” and “As far as I can tell we've proven our case.”
  
  
  That you haven’t provided any evidence of intelligent design.
  
  That you haven’t provided any evidence of any gods existence.
  
  That instead of doing so youd prefer to dodge and dance around that issue.
  
  In 2004 a state law was passed that required teaching students intelligent design. That law was challenged in court. In the trial “kitzmiller v. dover” the intelligent design community pulled out all the stops to try and prove that intelligent design wasn’t just creationist garbage. The intelligent design side lost. That’s why intelligent design cant be taught in schools. The judge said “A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory”. The intelligent design community had their chance but couldn’t provide even one scrap of evidence of design or a creator.
  
  We can sit here and argue but the fact that in federal court the best that intelligent design has to offer couldn’t even give it the credit to be taught as a hypothesis in school says more than I ever could.
  
  “We have all seen the evils atheists have done.”
  
  What exactly have atheists as a group done that is evil? Religion is responsible for the systematic oppression of human rights.(womens rights) Religion is responsible for institutionalized child abuse (catholic church child sex abuse and under age girls being forced to mary men three times or more their age). Religion has been the excuse for more murder and war than anything else in human history. Can anything atheists have done be compared to these? No, I thought not.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 3rd, 2011

• gilaspy, I noticed you only responded to the comment I left for Nick and One Man's Opinion but you didn't answer my question.
  
  You said that this video confirmed something. Please tell us what it is that confirmed.
  
  Quote, "That you haven’t provided any evidence of intelligent design.
  
  That you haven’t provided any evidence of any gods existence.
  
  That instead of doing so youd prefer to dodge and dance around that issue."
  
  Stop your dancing. Its you who are doing this. I asked a simple question.
  
  
  
  Tell us, what has been confirmed by the research Jack Szostak has done?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 3rd, 2011

• One Man's Opinion
  
  Sorry, but, religious institutions have been responsible for many atrocities. And atheist are not evil. I am a former atheist and I was not then an evil person. An atheist is one who rejects belief in a deity. That in of itself does not make anyone evil. There are various reason for being an atheist and I suppose being evil can be something that would entice someone to reject this belief, but, rejection of deities is not evil in of itself.
  
  Think about it from this angle: Does accepting the belief that deities exist make one good, holy or righteous?
  
  At Matthew 7:21 Jesus himself said, "Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter."
  
  And at James 2:19 we read: "You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder."
  

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 3rd, 2011

• "I asked a simple question."
  
  As did I. Its about time for you to put something up in support of your views. Wheres that article you mentioned a few posts ago? And thanks for recognizing the humanity of atheists.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 3rd, 2011

• gilaspy, I posted the article. It the one I posted for Nick and One Man's Opinion. Though it is criticized for the way it was published, it nevertheless was published. I am currently reading why it is being criticized in another article on Google Scholar. I know the rejection was because Dr. Sternberg did the reviewing as he felt the most qualified and his bias is the issue. I must say there does seem to be a conflict of interest and it may not have been the best decision for Dr. Sternberg to review it himself. However, that alone does not disqualify the article as bad science.
  
  If you look at the links I gave on chemical laws and peptide formation, you will see what angle I am coming from and I believe Dr. Meyer is coming from and how his case is strong. We are making the same case on this thread regarding abiogenesis.
  
  
  Now, please, tell me what the research by Jack Szostak is supposed to confirm?
  
  Quote, "And thanks for recognizing the humanity of atheists."
  
  You are welcome. As I said, I am a former atheist and have been there and felt the weird stare of people who believe in God once they find out you are an atheist. LOL!
  
  But, logic does not allow for labeling people as evil merely for the rejection OR acceptance of a belief.
  

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 3rd, 2011

• Regarding my interpretation of Dr. Szostaks work.
  
  As you can see by reading this “The Origins of Cellular Life” http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Schrum_et_al_CSH_2010.pdf from 2010.
  
  The purpose of the research is to identify “plausible pathways
  for the transition from complex prebiotic chemistry to simple biology”. This is accomplished successfully.
  At the time this article was written the only real obstacle to complete reconstruction of the prebiotic emergence of life is the identification of specific RNA precursors that satisfy necessary requirements. The article lays out many possible candidates in this search and identifies them as targets for further research.
  
  In this article from 2010 four months later “Chemoselective Multicomponent One-Pot Assembly of Purine Precursors in Water”
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Powner_et_al_2010_JACS.pdf
  
  That article goes into great detail about the exact biochemical processes leading to the formation of the necessary component missing from the first article. The article states regarding the described chemical process that “The reactions may therefore be of direct relevance to the problem of abiogenesis of a full set of canonical ribonucleotides, and hence the chemical origins of molecular biology.”
  
  Certainly the work will continue but it has been established a plausible pathway for lifes emergence independent of both prohibitively statistically improbably events and also the necessity of divine intervention.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 3rd, 2011

• Wednesday 10 PM discovery science channel. Some of the Stuff religion tries to explain might be real but have a more down to earth explination.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 3rd, 2011

• OK just got home from congregation meeting and have skimmed through your links.
  
  First off, I thank you very much for providing articles for me to look at. The second one seems very interesting to me. I will read it more carefully as time permits in parts and, be back later or tomorrow. I'm going to go get a bite to eat now and then maybe I'll respond on here when I get back. But if not, tomorrow I should have plenty of time towards the afternoon or evening.
  
  For the record, Dr. Meyer makes a similar case to the one I am attempting to make. He, however, is starting from the Cambrian explosion (after life has been around),on the other hand, my issue is with abiogenesis (origin of life).

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 3rd, 2011

• This work done by Matthew W. Powner, Be´atrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland appears to lay the framework for the necessary chemical process leading to the generation of the necessary components mentioned in my last post.
  
  http://nodens.ceab.csic.es/people/afernandez/files/lifeorigin/RNA-synthesis.pdf
  
  “my issue is with abiogenesis”
  
  What exactly is your issue with abiogenesis and what research supports your position? Obviously Dr. Meyers book couldn’t withstand critical review and the claim that he is the only one qualified in the field is pretty ridiculous even to me.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 3rd, 2011

• Gillaspy, you recently spoke of "a plausible pathway for lifes emergence." Do you also still maintain that aliens are a "plausible" cause of life as we know it today?
  
  It is interesting to see that Professor of Mathematics, Granville Sewell, in his book In The Beginning and Other Essays On Intelligent Design, quotes (in agreement with) Jay Hommick from the on-line American Spectator,
  
  It is not enough to say that design is a more likely scenario to explain a world full of well-designed things. Once you allow the intellect to consider that an elaborate organism with trillions of microscopic interactive components can be an accident ... you have essentially `lost your mind.' (117)
  
  Sewell, in his brief book, addresses both the macroscopic and the microscopic issues facing Darwinism with the logic of a mathematician, as one might have greatly assumed; from the Big Bang to quantum uncertainties. Very interesting. Toward the end of his book he makes a statement that clears the decks of convolution placed by Darwinism and its adherents.
  
  The discovery of the big bang means that atheists can no longer complain that those who believe that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth" are profaning science with supernatural speculation. Since there were no natural causes before Nature came into existence suddenly a few billion years ago, atheists are now just as guilty; now everyone must speculate about the supernatural forces which created our universe, the debate is now only about whether those forces were intelligent or unintelligent.
  
  Now the same can be said about the origin of life, or the origin of species: the atheist can no longer criticize proponents of intelligent design for staining the purity of science by trying to introduce supernatural causes into the picture (this criticism is still used, of course, and quite liberally, but it is no longer logically valid).
  
  Now it must be accepted by everyone-everyone who is aware of quantum mechanics, at least that there is a supernatural component to all natural phenomena, the question is again only whether this supernatural component is intelligent or unintelligent.
  
  Those who claim that science has eliminated the supernatural from Nature have a view of science that has been out of date for 80 years. When we try to reduce all of reality to matter in motion, we find quite a surprise: there at the bottom, controlling the motion of matter, is the remarkable Schrodinger equation of quantum mechanics, which tells us that science is an entertaining and useful tool to help us understand our world, but it does not have all the answers, and never will. (114-15)

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 4th, 2011

• "What exactly have atheists as a group done that is evil? Religion is responsible for the systematic oppression of human rights.(womens rights) Religion is responsible for institutionalized child abuse (catholic church child sex abuse and under age girls being forced to mary men three times or more their age). Religion has been the excuse for more murder and war than anything else in human history. Can anything atheists have done be compared to these? No, I thought not."
  
  How about genocide? Strange how everyone who committed genocide in the last century was an atheist.
  Hitler
  Pol Pot
  Stalin
  Mao Zedong
  
  And if you count abortion as genocide, which was promoted and popularized by Margaret Sanger an atheist I think we can all agree that atheist have killed far more people than religious people.
  
  However this does not mean that all religious people are perfect either. There are plenty of abuses as you mention although they go against the teachings of their religion. (Where in the Bible does it command a priest to molest and rape children? If anything that priest should probably be stoned in accordance with the Biblical laws)

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 4th, 2011

• Nick
  Something you need to understand about scientific research is the peer review system of publishing. I don’t mean to belittle you if you don’t already know this but you keep quoting un reviewed work so I feel the need to explain why its important. We live in a free country where anyone can publish anything they want and say anything they want and because of that anyone can claim to be making factual statements when theyre not. To ensure the highest standards of credibility the scientific community has a system of peer review. When a scientist performs experiments or creates theoretical models based on observed information they create a document containing all their information regarding their methods and findings. They submit that article to a scientific journal who assigns peers of the author the job of reviewing the work for its factual accuracy and quality of experimental procedures. If the authors peers find no faults then the article is published. The author never knows who the reviewers are other than that they are his or her fellows in that particular field of research and that the reviewers are screened for any possible conflicts of interest. Submissions are rejected all the time because the standards are very high and articles need to demonstrate reliable accurate repeatable findings and meticulously rigorous high standards for any experiments yielding data used to draw conclusions. All of this is to ensure that the scientific community as a whole has reliable information to base future research upon and to ensure that the public can trust the findings of scientific research.
  
  Unfortunately the books you’ve cited and authors you’ve mentioned haven’t been able to get their ideas and theories published and can you guess why? Because they don’t have any real proof of anything they are publishing in their books. Sure some of the things they talk about, quantum mechanics ect are real understood mathematical models used as the foundation for much research but the conclusions your authors draw are purely subjective and non factually based.
  
  In 2004 a state law was passed that required teaching students intelligent design. That law was challenged in court. In the trial “kitzmiller v. dover” the intelligent design community pulled out all the stops to try and prove that intelligent design wasn’t just creationist garbage. The intelligent design side lost. That’s why intelligent design cant be taught in schools. The judge said “A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory”. The intelligent design community had their chance but couldn’t provide even one scrap of evidence of design or a creator. This one case says more about the lack of credibility of the intelligent design movement than anything else I could tell you.
  
  “Gillaspy, you recently spoke of "a plausible pathway for lifes emergence." Do you also still maintain that aliens are a "plausible" cause of life as we know it today? “
  
  If aliens seeded life on this planet then that leaves us asking the same question about the origin of the alien life. The work I have cited seeks to answer the question of not just the origin of life on earth but also the possible origin for life on any planet with similar environmental conditions.
  
  “atheist can no longer criticize proponents of intelligent design for staining the purity of science by trying to introduce supernatural causes into the picture”
  
  Unfortunately this could not be further from the truth. Scientific experimentation and theoretical work does not imply the need for any supernatural force at the inception of the universe. There is not a single peer reviewed article in existence claiming such a fact. That is the sort of propaganda that your authors are fond of spreading around to give their fantasies a more credible taste.
  
  “quantum mechanics, at least that

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 4th, 2011

• “quantum mechanics, at least that there is a supernatural component to all natural phenomena”
  
  The phenomena of wave function collapse being instigated by interaction with an “observer” is no doubt that to which you refer but do you actually know anything about this process other than what your propagandists tell you it means? While quantum mechanics peals back the veil of reality to reveal a world totally foreign to our classical understandings what it does not do is prove anything about external gods and their existence. There is no peer reviewed article anywhere making such a claim because there is no such evidence. I do feel in this vein you’ve struck upon something closer to the truth than anything else you’ve mentioned and I recommend again to you the same book I recommended before “the physics of consciousness” to get the real information about that subject and its implications.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 4th, 2011

• OMO
  
  Hitler was a catholic
  
  "My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.”
  -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
  
  Even the catholic church endorsed Hitler. Pope Pius XII in 1939 instruct Cardinal Bertram to send a birthday message to Hitler: "warmest congratulations to the Fuhrer in the name of the bishops and the dioceses in Germany".
  
  Atheism was never cited as the reason for any genocide you mentioned. None of them who were without belief in a god used that lack of belief as justification for genocide. On the other hand the belief in god is used as justification for genocide and genocide at the direction of god is recorded in scripture.
  
  http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl3.htm#geno
  http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl3.htm#ges
  
  So not only is atheism not the cause of genocides but religion has been!

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 4th, 2011

• OK gilaspy, I have got the information from your links as well as another article on this theory in which Jack Szostak was in. This may take a while as I piece all of this together. I have several links open and will try and put it in an easy to understand order.
  
  BTW, when I asked "what has been confirmed?" it was not to put you on the spot. I just was not sure why you kept saying the same thing over and over in response to my comments when it was not relevant. I realized that perhaps you misunderstood what the research by Jack Szostak really proves. This is what will be addressed. Giving credit where credit is due, Dr. Szostak is a well accomplished man. However, we cannot allow his success be the deciding factor of what is true and plausible, that is the job of logic.
  
  As I said before in private to you, this really only shows that fatty acids can accumulate. Thats not really a big deal. All this is, is the Hydrophobic effect, under certain conditions can form a vesicle (bubble). You may be wondering what I mean since the video shows more. Well, some details were left out in the video.
  
  Dr. Szostak doesn't even claim that much in an interview. Watch the interview and pay close attention to what Dr. Szostak admits are a few problems. This is contrary to what the YOUTUBE wanted to show.
  
  
  

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 4th, 2011

• "Atheism was never cited as the reason for any genocide you mentioned. None of them who were without belief in a god used that lack of belief as justification for genocide. On the other hand the belief in god is used as justification for genocide and genocide at the direction of god is recorded in scripture."
  
  I never claimed that it was cited as the reason. I only pointed out that Hitler among others was an atheist. Hitler never attended church in his adult life and further he hated the church. Before he ever rose to power he had plans to destroy the church. The only reason he mentioned God in his speeches was to gain support from the people. In his private life he was an atheist.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_religious_views

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 4th, 2011

• NOS
  
  That interview is from two years before the papers i linked were published and between the interview and the time of the papers publishing a lot of progress was made.
  
  OMO
  
  Even if hitler wasnt "really" a christian he still used religion to justify his extermination of the jews. Either way religion was used as the justification. When was the last time you heard of athiesm being used as the justification for genocide? Also the bible is full of genocides in gods name, the wholesale slaughter of men women and children in the name of god.
  
  Need i even mention Osama bin Laden? Obviously religion has been the justification for mass murder even in modern times.
  
  In a historical context "savage natives" were pretty much exterminated everywhere europeans settled if they failed to convert to christianity. And or their lack of belief in Jesus was used as an excuse for the wholesale slaughter of innocent native peoples.
  
  Obviously religion has never done anything to prevent the genocides that litter human history and the notion that a lack of belief in gods is the cause of genocides is rediculous.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 4th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Yes but the issues are still the same and it debunks the video you posted.
  
  About to post in a moment. Please let me finish before you guys start posting stuff.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 4th, 2011

• From the article titled "The Origins of Cellular Life".
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Schrum_et_al_CSH_2010.pdf
  
  "Understanding the origin of cellular life on Earth requires the discovery of plausible pathways for the transition from complex prebiotic chemistry to simple biology, defined as the emergence of chemical assemblies capable of Darwinian evolution."
  
  The paper acknowledges that a plausible path way needs to be found for cells to take advantage of Darwinian evolution. But this is not maintained in a crucial area, the environment in which this prebiotic simple cell is supposed to emerge. Plausible pathways need plausible environments in which the events said to take place, actually can take place. Notice the next comment from the same paper.
  
  "Although recognizing the many gaps in our knowledge of prebiotic chemistry and the early planetary setting in which life emerged, we will assume for the purpose of this review that the requisite chemical building blocks were available, in appropriate environmental settings."
  
  A little generous to themselves here, are they not? Indeed. But, some may say that what is more important is finding the mechanism and deal with the setting later. However, this is putting the cart before the horse a bit much. Though one can see where at times it would be beneficial to work backwards, in this instance it is not, given the fact that enough evidence is available for it not to have been considered so that such a generous assumption is not be necessary. Makes you wonder why, does it not? BTW, this is a good reason why peer-review doesn't amount to much despite what some people may think. All too often, the conclusions are looked at but not the methods and circumstances the particular research is conducted under are skipped over or assumed. I have had many debates in where I ask a question and the conclusion is given from sources where only that is the issue being considered. Once you look at the actual source you find that many things are omitted and since the public doesn't care to look deeper (in general), they are happy to swallow it.
  
  Lets examine another thing, their definition of a proto cell.
  
  "Here we will use the term protocell to refer specifically
  to cell-like structures that are spatially delimited by a growing membrane boundary"
  
  OK, sounds pretty straight forward... But wait...
  
  "A protocell differs from a true cell in that
  the evolution of genomically encoded advantageous
  functions has not yet occurred."
  
  Wait a minute...
  
  "Once such genomically encoded and therefore
  heritable functions have evolved, we would
  consider the system to be a complete, living biological
  cell, albeit one much simpler than any
  modern cell (Szostak et al. 2001)."
  
  Excuse me? Where did this come from? How is it that life is now something that is genomically encoded and therefore a function? This is circular, they made up their own parameters so that their definition would fit. They tell you a proto cell is not a true cell because a genomically encoded advantageous function has not occurred so that they can say when it does occur, it is now life. This is WAY to generous. A virus isn't even considered a living organism for good reason. And this now qualifies? Well, at least they are honest enough to say this was their own definition.
  
  Lets look at another paper. The methods in nice detail. Do they plausible show how life could have come by chance and/or chemical law and without intelligence?
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 4th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Title: "Template-directed synthesis of a genetic polymer in a
  model protocell"
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Mansy_et_al_Nature_2008.pdf
  
  "We used the reaction described previously to test the chemical and physical compatibility of template-directed copying with the integrity of fatty-acid-based vesicles....Vesicles containing encapsulated primer-template were purified to remove unencapsulated primer-template."
  
  Doesn't sound like a primordial, prebiotic, pre-anything really. Why didn't they just let it be?
  
  "We added 5mM activated 29-amino-guanosine to initiate template copying, removed aliquots at intervals, and again purified the vesicles to remove traces of primer-template that might have leaked out of the vesicles."
  
  So much for randomness and/or chemical laws doing all the guiding... And remember, they are assuming everything needed is in the correct proportion already just waiting there. It just needs chemical reactions...
  
  From the other link you provided, title: "Chemoselective Multicomponent One-Pot Assembly of Purine Precursors in Water"
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Powner_et_al_2010_JACS.pdf
  
  "A plausible prebiotic synthesis of the canonical nucleotides has long been a major goal in origins of life research.1-3 The
  oligomerization of hydrogen cyanidesone of the major products
  of spark discharge in atmospheres containing methane and nitrogensto furnish the HCN tetramer diaminomaleonitrile (1),
  its near-quantitative intramolecular photochemical rearrangement
  to 5-aminoimidazole-4-carbonitrile (AICN, 2), and the subsequent
  hydrolysis of AICN 2 to 5-aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide
  (AICA, 3) were demonstrated over 50 years ago.4 However,
  the further elaboration of aminoimidazoles 2 and 3 to give the
  purine nucleobases and, after ribosylation and phosphorylation,
  the purine nucleotides is both very low yielding and, most
  importantly, not selective for the canonical nucleotides over
  isomers thereof. For example, adenine and hypoxanthine have
  been condensed under dry conditions at high temperatures with
  an excess of ribose in the presence of a high concentration of
  magnesium salts to yield 3 and 15% of the respective canonical
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 4th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  N9-linked

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 4th, 2011

• comments wont post!!!

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 4th, 2011

• N9-linked

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 4th, 2011

• Please no one post anything until tomorrow. I can't get my post on for some reason when I copy and paste and I don't wanna type all that over again.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 4th, 2011

• "Need i even mention Osama bin Laden? Obviously religion has been the justification for mass murder even in modern times."
  
  Read the link I posted. Hitler used religions language to appeal to the populace. Nothing he did was justified by any religion.
  
  OBL is an extremist who went against his religious teachings as well. I would write more but my brain cells are incapacitated on account of all the alcohol I consumed for a 4th of July party. I'm about to go to bed now. I'll write more later ;)

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 4th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  N9-linked -D-ribofuranonucleosides in complex mixtures with
  many other isomers.5 Thus, irrespective of the prebiotic availability
  of ribose,6,7 the formation of adenosine (and inosine)
  is in low yield, alongside a multitude of regioisomers and
  pyranosyl isomers. Furthermore, guanine, cytosine, and uracil
  do not give any of their respective nucleosides under similar
  conditions.6 Recently, a stepwise route from simple abiotic
  molecules considered to be prebiotically available to activated
  pyrimidine nucleotides was demonstrated (Scheme 1B).1 However,
  this route does not solve the problem of purine synthesis.
  Ideally, further development of this chemistry would also lead
  to a stepwise synthetic route for purine nucleotide assembly,
  thus providing a plausible pathway by which the four nucleotides
  required for an information-rich RNA coding system would be
  prebiotically available."
  
  Sounds like the environment makes this a little difficult, if it even was as they assume. So, what was the solution? Tinker with it until you get the results you want. It doesn't matter if it requires certain steps that didn't plausibly occur all on their own, whether by chance of chemical reactions. Then, once you are done tinkering you can say,....
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• Firstly you are concerned that the experimental circumstances do not reflect prebiotic environments on earth. I assure you that simple organic molecules suspended in water and experiencing heat gradients is definitely one of the many possible environments available on a prebiotic earth. Obviously we can not go back in time and pick a specific location to exactly replicate and that is why for the sake of scientific integrity it is necessary to say "Although recognizing the many gaps in our knowledge of prebiotic chemistry and the early planetary setting in which life emerged, we will assume for the purpose of this review that the requisite chemical building blocks were available, in appropriate environmental settings." Once this is put into a more understandable context im sure that it makes much more sense to you.
  
  “A little generous to themselves here, are they not? Indeed. But, some may say that what is more important is finding the mechanism and deal with the setting later. However, this is putting the cart before the horse… …and the conclusion is given from sources where only that is the issue being considered. Once you look at the actual source you find that many things are omitted and since the public doesn't care to look deeper (in general), they are happy to swallow it.”
  
  All of this was based on you not understanding the quotes you had misrepresented.
  
  “How is it that life is now something that is genomically encoded and therefore a function? This is circular, they… …And this now qualifies? Well, at least they are honest enough to say this was their own definition.”
  
  I will explain this for you as well because again I am certain you’ve simply misunderstood and misrepresented what was written in the paper. A reasonable premise in the paper is that simple self replicating polymers were the first genetic material. The scientists do a good job of showing the plausibility of this scenario. The scientists specify that in order for this type of self replicating polymer to satisfy current definitions of life there must be something beneficial to the cells replication in the polymer, instead of just random self replicating parts. The structure of the self replicating polymer will inevitably undergo such a beneficial mutation due to natural chemical processes and once it has that “beneficial information” will be “encoded” and the polymer will meet the definition of life. Several examples of possible such mutations were listed in the video, one was a mutation that caused the production of lipids therefore speeding the rate of membrane growth.
  
  “Doesn't sound like a primordial, prebiotic, pre-anything really. Why didn't they just let it be?”
  “So much for randomness and/or chemical laws doing all the guiding...”
  
  In this experiment they made their own self replicating polymer (referred to as a template) from a primer-template then inserted this “genetic material” into a lipid membrane. The polymer could occur naturally but they wanted that specific one so they built it from the primer template. After inserting the polymer they wanted to ensure that their primer-template wouldn’t interfere with the experiment so they “were purified to remove unencapsulated primer-template.” And “We added
  5mM activated 29-amino-guanosine to initiate template copying, removed aliquots at intervals, and again purified the vesicles to remove traces of primer-template that might have leaked out of the vesicles.” Then the experiment was run to show that their theoretical model would actually work. Im sure now that ive explained it to you it makes much more sense.
  
  “From the other link you provided, title: "Chemoselective Multicomponent One-Pot Assembly of Purine Precursors in Water"
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Powner_et_al_2010_JACS.pdf
  
  "A plausible prebiotic synthesis of the canonical nucleotides has long been a major goal in origins of lif

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 5th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Then, once you are done tinkering you can say,...."In particular, we have demonstrated the concurrent synthesis of 37 and the tetrahydroimidazo[1 ,3′]-2′′-aminooxazolo[ 1′,2′]-pyrimidines in the pH range in which activated pyrimidine synthesis can occur (pH

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• "A plausible prebiotic synthesis of the canonical nucleotides has long been a major goal in origins of life research.1-3 The”
  
  The whole point of that paper seems to be to show the plausibility of the formation of the necessary bits for life in a prebiotic environment. This quote sums it up nicely “The diversity of chemical species likely to have been present under prebiotic conditions and the proven
  utility of multicomponent reactions (MCRs) to yield biologically relevant structures4,5,8 suggested that the development of novel MCRs could lead to the rapid buildup of molecular complexity and, in particular, to the structures that are central to molecular biology.”
  
  Nothing wrong with showing that the bits and pieces necessary could have naturally occurred in a prebiotic environment.
  
  Looking forward to the rest of your misunderstandings

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 5th, 2011

• You guys could of have at least waited just a bit? Secondly, how can you reply to what I am saying if you haven't heard it yet. I have the entire post I can't even get on here because for some reason I can't paste what I've saved even today.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• Quote, "Nothing wrong with showing that the bits and pieces necessary could have naturally occurred in a prebiotic environment.
  
  Looking forward to the rest of your misunderstandings"
  
  You didn't correct anything. Look at what I wrote, even the little bit I was able to get on here. I am pointing out what THEY are saying. They admit it in their own paper that they don't know. Based on that, neither you nor they can say that the findings are plausible. Furthermore I cover this issue about the environment later on. This is why I asked you guys to wait a bit. I'm going to try and paste it again, but if it doesn't work, I'll try and type it out.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• cont...
  
  Sounds like the environment makes this a little difficult, if it even was as they assume. So, what was the solution? Tinker with it until you get the results you want. It doesn't matter if it requires certain steps that didn't plausibly occur all on their own, whether by chance of chemical reactions. Then, once you are done tinkering you can say,...."In particular, we have demonstrated the concurrent synthesis of 37 and the tetrahydroimidazo[1 ,3′]-2′′-aminooxazolo[ 1′,2′]-pyrimidines in the pH range in which activated pyrimidine synthesis can occur (pH

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• Sounds like the environment makes this a little difficult, if it even was as they assume. So, what was the solution? Tinker with it until you get the results you want.
  It doesn't matter if it requires certain steps that didn't plausibly occur all on their own, whether by chance of chemical reactions. Then, once you are done tinkering you can say pretty much anything you want. BTW I cut out what they said since I am not going to type all that out. But, it was basically confirmation of their findings.
  
  Sounds like a cake walk... Just Chemistry? Think about it... First, the environment is assumed, then research is conducted to see how to make these little proto cells, then when other problems arise work around those while still assuming everything was there, and once you have the results you wanted, just say that, that must have been the environment and voila! NO ProblemO... But is that what really makes something plausible? Can we really just ignore the environment, just like that? Would there be any problem to this theory, if we looked at the conditions, as far as we understand them to be at the moment?
  
  Lets look at a few more bits of info on the methods used by Dr. Szostak. We'll come back to the environment in a bit.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• "In order to test their theory, the researchers first constructed simple model “protocells,” in which they filled fatty-acid vesicles with either a sucrose solution or the same solvent without sucrose. The sucrose solution created a greater osmotic pressure inside the vesicles than the solvent alone."
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040903091444.htm
  
  Sucrose is sugar. Lets take a mental note... Lets see a bit more.
  
  "Once we had some understanding that this process worked, we moved on to more interesting versions, in which we loaded the vesicles with genetic molecules,” said Szostak.
  
  MMMhhhhMMM... They loaded the vesicles and that with genetic molecules.
  
  "Next, they used RNA segments, and finally a large, natural RNA molecule. In all cases, they saw that the vesicles swollen with genetic material grew, while those with no genetic material shrank."
  
  OK so they used a large, natural RNA molecule, as well.
  
  "It is important to note, said Szostak, the concentrations of genetic material that his group used were comparable to those found in living cells."
  
  So we have a high concentration, almost equal to what a living cell, a modern cell, would have. I wonder, is this likely in a prebiotic environment?
  
  "If we can get self-replicating RNAs, then we can put them into these simple membrane compartments and hope to actually see this competitive process of growth that we are hypothesizing,” he said.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040903091444.htm
  
  This really starts to hurt that YOUTUBE vid. I mean, there is NOTHING random, unguided or chemically guided/reaction in any of this other than the formation of the membrane. And event that took some perfecting if you read the other links.
  
  Another link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080604140959.htm
  
  "The protocell's fatty acid membrane allows chemical compounds, including the building blocks of DNA, to enter into the cell without the assistance of the protein channels and pumps required by today's highly developed cell membranes."
  
  OK but that doesn't mean much if the way you replace the method of getting things in and get away from the complex machinery in a modern cell it YOU the scientist, in a lab, after many trials and errors, put the stuff in yourself.
  
  "Depending upon chemical concentrations and the pH of their environment, micelles can convert into layered membrane sheets or enclosed vesicles. Researchers commonly use vesicles to model the cellular membranes of protocells."
  
  Remember all that tinkering they were doing? That quote above, this is why.
  
  "Szostak's team carefully analyzed vesicles comprised of different fatty acid molecules and identified particular features that made membranes more or less permeable to potential nutrient molecules. They found that, while large molecules such as strands of DNA or RNA could not pass through fatty acid membranes, the simple sugar molecules and individual nucleotides that make up larger nucleic acids easily crossed the membrane."
  
  So they even selected the vesicle that they needed. "Bad, bad, bad, bad, good... OK keep that on." I'm kidding, but you get the point.
  
  "To further explore the function of a fatty acid cell membrane, the researchers used activated nucleotides they developed for this study that will copy a DNA template strand without needing the polymerase enzyme usually required for DNA replication."
  
  Wait a minute, but they said earlier that, "By showing that this can happen, and indeed happen quite efficiently, we have come a little closer to our goal of making a functional protocell that, in the right environment, is able to grow and divide on its own," said Szostak."
  
  Anyways lets continue...
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  "After placing template molecules inside fatty-acid vesicles and adding the activated nucleotides to the external environment, they found that additional DNA was formed within the vesicles, confirming that the nucleotide molecules were passing through the fatty-acid membranes."
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080604140959.htm
  
  Remember the end of the vid you posted? It said, "Just Chemistry. Think about it." Was that guy serious? I mean, this isn't just chemical reactions. This is intelligence.
  
  Now, lets go back to the question about the assumed environment and all the cool chemicals and stuff that was supposed to be there, the sucrose in particular and the ph levels if you read the links you gave me.
  
  Title: Chemical evolution toward the origin of life*
  http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/pdf/2007/pdf/7912x2101.pdf
  
  "However, it had
  not been possible so far to achieve a Butlerov reaction forming ribose, providing a pathway to the sugar
  component of the nucleotides. This indicates that the ribose concentration in the “primordial soup” was
  very low and that this sugar was only a minor component of the heterogenous mixture of formed sugars
  [60,61]."
  
  Remember the sucrose we took a mental note of earlier? Doesn't look like it was likely it was found way back then.
  
  "Furthermore, a high formaldehyde concentration would have been needed in the primordial scenario,
  and this is highly questionable, as the reactions of other compounds present in the “prebiotic
  soup” with formaldehyde would rapidly convert it into numerous other products."
  
  Formaldehyde was also talked about much in the first or second link you gave me. Doesn't sound like it was found much either.
  
  "Besides that, the pH of the primordial ocean was rather acidic than basic due to the high carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere [62] and thus unfavorable for the Butlerov condensation"
  
  If you saw the requirements of the ph in the prebiotic soup, it was 6.5. That is not very acidic.
  
  This is probably the biggest problem.
  
  "Polyphosphates and inorganic phosphates are the most plausible source of phosphate in a prebiotic scenario, but the main problem for the association of phosphate with nucleic bases and ribose―besides the lack of a plausible reaction mechanism under primitive earth conditions―is the availability of dissolved phosphate in the slightly acidic prebiotic sea: polyphosphates would quickly hydrolyze and phosphate ions precipitate as insoluble compounds of metal ions like Ca2+ as indicated by many rocks and minerals consisting of metal phosphates."
  
  More problems with the acidity of the sea.
  
  "If all three essential parts―ribose, phosphates, and nucleobases―were formed in adequate amounts under the rough earth conditions, they would have to be assembled to nucleotides and further polymerize to RNA molecules. Related to the specific composition and complex structure of nucleic acids, the probability that they could have been formed in such a hostile environment is almost zero."
  
  All this stuff is needed. Please read the links you gave me in detail. This was why all that tinkering was done.
  
  "Analogous reactions with pyrimidines have failed completely so far [78]. Furthermore, a chemical process with the correct regioselectivity for the assembly of all the building blocks is almost impossible to imagine in the chemical environment of the prebiotic scenario [80]. Reactions like oligomerization of phosphorimidazolides of nucleobases on montmorillonite [81] work well under laboratory conditions but are very hard to imagine in a realistic primordial soup. All these aspects and arguments almost exclude the nucleic acids as a candidate for
  the first step of chemical evolution toward life."
  
  The environment needs to be taken into consideration. As we can see here, it doesn't look good. In fact, it looks implausible.
  
  OK I think that covers it.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• In particular, we have demonstrated the concurrent synthesis of 37 and the tetrahydroimidazo[1 ,3′]-2′′-aminooxazolo[ 1′,2′]-pyrimidines in the pH range in which activated pyrimidine synthesis can occur (pH

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• The last post was me just trying to paste what I cut out. For some reason I can't copy paste things from a PDF link. The parts from Science Daily.com and my own words seems to be just fine. Its only when I quote from PDF stuff I can't place it on here on some days.
  
  Anyway, please read what is being inferred. What you did the last time is see a supposed misunderstanding of mine. However, calling it that and it actually being a misunderstanding are two different things. I also hope you actually focus on the merits of Sztostak's evidence and my arguments. Once again, please focus on merits of arguments.
  
  That video is quite easy to debunk even if you ignore all my words and just focus on Szostak's words and listen to the interview. He himself doesn't claim anything near what you or the YOUTUBE poster claimed.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• “That video is quite easy to debunk even if you just look at all my words and just look at Szostak's words and listen to the interview. He himself doesn't claim anything near what you or the YOUTUBE poster claimed”
  
  Ive watched the interview three times now. Firstly you need to understand that the interview was from at least two full years before the papers verifying his theories were published and at that time there were problems that needed to be solved. However those problems were solved and the published papers detail the solving of those problems. The youtube video represented a theory that has since been verified by those experiments covered in the papers. Frankly I don’t see how what you personally have said undermines any of this in the slightest.
  
  “Anyway, please read what is being inferred. What you did the last time is see a supposed misunderstanding of mine. However, calling it that and it actually being a misunderstanding are two different things. I also hope you actually focus on the merits of Sztostak's evidence and my arguments. Once again, please focus on merits of arguments.”
  
  Either it was a misunderstanding or an intentional blatant misrepresentation I assumed you wouldn’t be the type to do the later. And when it comes to your declarations about the fallaciousness of the documentation im immediately skeptical. Where are your peer reviewed scientific papers undermining this work? Where are your peer reviewed articles supporting any of your assumptions and theories about the origins of life being due to intelligent intervention? So far all you’ve done is display the fact that you don’t understand the documents ive presented you, documents supporting accepted theories.
  
  I eagerly anticipate you will provide peer reviewed publications either undermining these peer reviewed published works or peer reviewed published works supporting competing theories in favor of intelligent design.
  
  Since my word on abiogenesis being true was not enough to satisfy you and you required I provide peer reviewed documentation supporting my claims why do you not hold yourself to the same standards?

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 5th, 2011

• The question of if or not the necessary bits and pieces for life to get going were available on the prebiotic earth due to naturally occurring processes seems to be a hotly contentious issue.
  
  This article from 2007 (http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/pdf/2007/pdf/7912x2101.pdf) makes it look very unlikely, however a few years later in 2010 this publication
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Powner_et_al_2010_JACS.pdf
  shows that “The diversity of chemical species likely to have been present under prebiotic conditions and the proven
  utility of multicomponent reactions (MCRs) to yield biologically relevant structures4,5,8 suggested that the development of novel MCRs could lead to the rapid buildup of molecular complexity and, in particular, to the structures that are central to molecular biology.”
  
  The nice thing about science is that people are constantly refining and improving our understanding about things. What seemed impossible a few years ago can be demonstrated as quite likely a mere few years later.
  
  I think this pretty much addresses the a lot of your objections.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 5th, 2011

• Hold on there. I did provide a peer review article: http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/pdf/2007/pdf/7912x2101.pdf
  
  This was not intended by the publishers to debunk Dr. Szostak. But you must understand that if a theory is based on assumptions and those assumptions are not plausible one cannot therefore say it is plausible. Dr. Szostak conducted his research under a bad assumption. The article I cite clearly shows that the assumptions are without foundation, though, they did not intend to address Dr. Szostak's findings.
  
  Think about it. It is not necessary for an article to say, "This addresses this, in this way and that way and therefore...." If you look at peer reviewed articles you will see why. When you look at an article you see numbers in between like [35] or any number. This, if you follow it to the bottom, represents an article that only supports part of what they are saying. It is not therefore confirmation of everything the paper is saying. It may not even be relevant to the particular point they are trying to make as far as the whole article. It only has to relevant as far as the point they are trying to make at that instant.
  
  So, the article I cited was not to debunk Dr. Szostak's finding, only to debunk the idea that this was plausible in early earth conditions. This shows that the findings are implausible and therefore cannot be used as evidence to show anything plausible. You can believe what you'd like, just like I can, we have that right. However, we are not entitled to our own facts.
  
  Quote, "I eagerly anticipate you will provide peer reviewed publications either undermining these peer reviewed published works or peer reviewed published works supporting competing theories in favor of intelligent design."
  
  The link I provided does both. Read it and see.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• Oops, sorry didn't see your last comment just now. For some reason only one of two were shown. But, I can't get to it now, gotta go! I'll try later to read and address it.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• The question of if or not the necessary bits and pieces for life to get going were available on the prebiotic earth due to naturally occurring processes seems to be a hotly contentious issue.
  
  This article from 2007 (http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/pdf/2007/pdf/7912x2101.pdf) makes it look very unlikely, however a few years later in 2010 this publication
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Powner_et_al_2010_JACS.pdf
  shows that “The diversity of chemical species likely to have been present under prebiotic conditions and the proven
  utility of multicomponent reactions (MCRs) to yield biologically relevant structures4,5,8 suggested that the development of novel MCRs could lead to the rapid buildup of molecular complexity and, in particular, to the structures that are central to molecular biology.”
  
  The nice thing about science is that people are constantly refining and improving our understanding about things. What seemed impossible a few years ago can be demonstrated as quite likely a mere few years later.
  
  I think this pretty much addresses the a lot of your objections.
  
  
  repeated for emphasis, and yes I know that papers often reference other papers. If everyone had to prove everything from scratch no one could get anything done. That’s why having an up to date body of reliable work is so important.
  
  I think its funny how i preemptively knew what your argument would be and crafted my response to correct you before you even made it.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 5th, 2011

• Assuming everything you say is correct, accurate and irrefutable what does that mean? And what does that prove?
  
  As I said earlier, all it proves that intelligence is required to create life since this was not observed in nature under natural settings.
  
  Dr. Szostak is a highly intelligent individual who used his vast intelligence along with the intelligence of his colleagues to conduct the experiment. While he did not put 10,000 rocks in a straight row north to south he metaphorically put 1000 in a straight row using his intelligence.
  
  Again, I ask all of you to please shorten your answers to a few paragraphs and give the rest of us a chance to respond before you continue.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 5th, 2011

• “And what does that prove?”
  
  It proves that life on earth could have gotten started without god. It proves that it didn’t take (metaphorically speaking) randomly lining up thousands of rocks in a row because life getting going without god is plausible. It proves that on other planets with similar conditions life could get going there too in the same way.
  
  “all it proves that intelligence is required to create life since this was not observed in nature under natural settings.”
  
  The conditions that existed on earth when life got started don’t exist on earth today and we don’t have time machines to go back in time to look at life getting started in person. These scientists duplicate the conditions in a lab because that’s the only option. A lot of the stuff they do is about proving this reaction or that reaction works and those experiments don’t require setting up exact copies of pre-life earth conditions. One of the major implications of the experimental work is to show that it doesn’t require intelligent intervention to create life.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 5th, 2011

• Gillaspy, thought you might want to read this about peer review, from one who should know, Editor of Lancet, a British Medical Journal.
  
  Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet, has said that, "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability—not the validity—of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong."
  
  As to the lie of "complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the [ID]theory," See, please: http://www.weloennig.de/literatur1a.html

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 5th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "I think its funny how i preemptively knew what your argument would be and crafted my response to correct you before you even made it."
  
  What did you counter? You understood the angle I was going to use because thats what I wrote in my long post. If you didn't get it I would be concerned as I even told you I was going to address the environment in a bit. BTW, I did make a mistake, but, you didn't point it out. The mistake was in the sugar and how it could not have played a role. Dr. Szostak did addresses this.
  
  However, a few things were not addressed, at least as far as I can tell. You can go ahead and correct me if you see a problem.
  
  "Upon mixing formaldehyde, 5, and 2 or 3 in water at room temperature and
  near neutral pH, the rapid, efficient synthesis of rac-tetrahydroimidazo[
  1′,3′]-2′′-aminooxazolo[1′,2′]-pyrimidines 6 or 7 was
  observed (Scheme 2)."
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Powner_et_al_2010_JACS.pdf
  
  Where is the problem?
  
  "Furthermore, a high formaldehyde concentration would have been needed in the primordial scenario,
  and this is highly questionable, as the reactions of other compounds present in the “prebiotic
  soup” with formaldehyde would rapidly convert it into numerous other products. Besides that, the pH
  of the primordial ocean was rather acidic than basic due to the high carbon dioxide concentration in the
  atmosphere [62] and thus unfavorable for the Butlerov condensation."
  
  So large amounts of formaldehyde not likely and whatever would be there would be lost AND the ph would be more acidic when in the Szostak paper it needs to be neutral.
  
  Quote, "“The diversity of chemical species likely to have been present under prebiotic conditions and the proven
  utility of multicomponent reactions (MCRs) to yield biologically relevant structures4,5,8 suggested"
  
  Did you notice the "4, 5, 8"? The first two are quite old but 8 is recent. Here it is: http://www.cshperspectives.com/content/2/4/a005439.full
  
  And what can we learn from that?
  
  "In the first step, we found that the reaction of glycolaldehyde 4 and cyanamide 6 generated a series of dead end adducts and a small amount of 2-aminooxazole 21 in the absence of phosphate, but in its presence 21 was produced cleanly in extremely high yield."
  
  The way Szostak side stepped the issue of sugar, or at least how he must have, is with inorganic phosphate.
  
  Is this plausible?
  
  "Polyphosphates and inorganic phosphates are the most plausible source of phosphate in a prebiotic
  scenario, but the main problem for the association of phosphate with nucleic bases and ribose—besides
  the lack of a plausible reaction mechanism under primitive earth conditions—is the availability of
  dissolved phosphate in the slightly acidic prebiotic sea: polyphosphates would quickly hydrolyze and
  phosphate ions precipitate as insoluble compounds of metal ions like Ca2+ as indicated by many rocks
  and minerals consisting of metal phosphates."
  
  Doesn't sound like it. Szostak needs a neutral ph while we can see now that it was more acidic.
  
  Those three points were not circumvented.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• Furthermore... btw ignore the ribose, it was addressed.
  
  "If all three essential parts—ribose, phosphates, and nucleobases—were formed in adequate
  amounts under the rough earth conditions, they would have to be assembled to nucleotides and further
  polymerize to RNA molecules. Related to the specific composition and complex structure of nucleic
  acids, the probability that they could have been formed in such a hostile environment is almost zero.
  The formation of purine ribonucleosides upon heating of their constituents in an otherwise pure
  solvent has been shown experimentally, but even in this clean environment only a small percentage of
  the products has biologically relevant linkages [78,79]. Analogous reactions with pyrimidines have
  failed completely so far [78]. Furthermore, a chemical process with the correct regioselectivity for the
  assembly of all the building blocks is almost impossible to imagine in the chemical environment of the
  prebiotic scenario [80]. Reactions like oligomerization of phosphorimidazolides of nucleobases on montmorillonite [81] work well under laboratory conditions but are very hard to imagine in a realistic
  primordial soup. All these aspects and arguments almost exclude the nucleic acids as a candidate for
  the first step of chemical evolution toward life."
  
  In other words, its not just the conditions, its the assembly.
  
  Good night fellas.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 5th, 2011

• Nick
  So you dig up one washed up hack who was accused of fraud and quote him thinking that will invalidate the peer review process? Laughable. And furthermore the fact that none of those “supposedly legitimate” articles you linked were acceptable in court should tell you exactly how worthless they are.
  
  NOS
  Im waiting on your peer reviewed articles overturning or challenging the ones I provided. So far you seem to think there are problems and that’s great but youre no expert and if the issues you seem to find so obvious were legitimate the paper never would have been published in such a reputable journal. I mean for crying out loud a novice like yourself isn’t going to debunk the head of the evolutionary research department from Harvard in a couple hours of surfing the net. No offense but I want something not based on your opinion, something that actually mentions what you believe (god and or intelligent design), something reliable peer reviewed and published.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 6th, 2011

• Didn't like that one? How about another, original research paper. A more recent one:
  
  http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/Sample/FOB_4(SI1)1-21o.pdf
  
  Zitate aus dem Peer-Review-Process (5 independent reviews and referees): "General and international interest: High. Conclusions: Properly drawn with regards to methods and data. Scientific quality: High. Abstract/Summary or Introduction: Good. Language: Good. Clarity: Statements are clear. Tables and table headings: Easy to understand. Formal quality (summary of entire manuscript): Very good. Acceptance/rejection: The manuscript should be published following minor editorial/reviewer suggestions." "The paper discusses several important, if controversial, questions, and will stimulate thinking and research in evolutionary theory, comparative botany, genetics, and systematics." "It is useful for the scientific community that unusual views are discussed, especially when they come from a well-established scientist such as Dr Lönnig, so long as they are presented rigorously in the context of empirical data."
  
  Obviously you are on the run and getting flustered with abusive speech – “creationist garbage.” Asking for “peer review” of authoritarian expert testimony is just a chicken ploy of a judge unwilling to make judgment based on the expert testimony in the case.
  
  I would like to know who you consider the "peers" and what standards used in the review? Was it conformity to their views?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 6th, 2011

• Nick
  
  As NOS pointed out with his paper about how sexual reproduction adds a lot more diversity to the population than originally thought. Also Im sure that evolution will continue to be refined further in the future as people do more experiments and make more studies. That paper doesn’t mention god or intelligent design and it doesn’t even claim to overturn the entire concept of evolution. Assuming the author is legit and the publication is solid (giving you benefit of the doubt) the most this does is tell us that there is some mechanism that allows species to activate previously dormant genetic material allowing for a morphological return to an ancestral form. Now I could be wrong but im almost certain people already knew that because once in a while we see things like people with stub tails (vestigiality).
  
  “Obviously you are on the run and getting flustered with abusive speech – “creationist garbage.” Asking for “peer review” of authoritarian expert testimony is just a chicken ploy of a judge unwilling to make judgment based on the expert testimony in the case. “
  
  No, im just frustrated by both of your insistence that intelligent design is some proven thing and your insistence that god is some proven thing but you both seem to fail to produce credible proof on the subject. At best you guys attack evolution and atheism but you never provide anything reliable supporting your own views. And also frustrating is that neither of you is qualified to dismiss the peer reviewed published work of a Nobel laureate, current head of department at Harvard yet you both do out of hand casually as if a monkey ought to know it is false. That sort of arrogance rubs me wrong. After all you’ve insisted that I materialize “evidence” to support my position so all I want is the same out of you both. If my word isn’t good enough then neither is yours and I want the same standards applied to yourselves.
  
  “I would like to know who you consider the "peers" and what standards used in the review? Was it conformity to their views?”
  
  Peers are people considered experts who work in the same scientific field or a closely related field who has the credentials (degrees ect) to qualify him or her to review the work in question. Factual correctness, and rigorous high standards for experiments, and detailed methods are some of the standards usually used in review. Ideological conformity for this world view or that is anathema to the spirit of scientific discovery. Scientists recognize the plasticity of our understandings and seek to further refine our knowledge even if that means overturning what was previously accepted. Aside note, these scientists are loving to when they can disprove each other, nothing makes a name for a scientist like overthrowing some “sacred cow” so to speak.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 6th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Wait a minuter here, again. Lets do this logically.
  
  First off, just for the sake of argument and for purposes of this comment box I will ignore and/or grant that this was via undirected (in other words, not intelligence) chemical law (which it wasn't). With that in mind let us proceed.
  
  The claim is that the Szostak research shows a plausible way in the early earth conditions for abiogenesis to take place. Let "A" stand for "a plausible way in the early earth conditions for abiogenesis to take place".
  
  So we have A. Now we examine the how it is that A meets criteria for its plausibility.
  
  The paper you cite states that the conditions of the early earth allowed for this chemicals to be present in the way the experiment needs. Let "C" stand for "conditions of the early earth allowed for these chemicals to be present in the way the experiment needs". So now we have C.
  
  We have the claim A and what allows for it is C. Basically, if C then A (C → A)
  
  OK now, all that has to be done is examine C to see if it allows for A.
  
  As you can see from the above data from peer reviewed papers, phosphate and formaldehyde, key components in the Szostak research, could not have been found in the amounts that the experiment needs and the ph is more acidic than in the neutral conditions Szostak's experiment were conducted under.
  
  In other words, not C. It is not the case that "conditions of the early earth allowed for these chemicals to be present in the way the experiment needs".
  
  Now, for purposes of logic this does not mean that abiogenesis could not be true. It does mean, however, that in this instance A is falsified, since it was C, in this case, that gave A the plausible conditions.
  
  Simple logic.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 6th, 2011

• I would also remind you gilaspy, that this is not about me. Whenever arguments are made and examined, it is never about the person. It is only about the merits of the arguments being laid out. Attacking Nick and I does you no good in rational discussions. If our credentials were the subject you could make that claim since in that case it would be relevant. In this instance it is not.
  
  I will also remind you that our opinions are not what is being presented. Both Nick and I have given you peer reviewed papers.
  
  I wonder, do you understand what the numbers like [8] mean when placed in articles such as you and I have presented? They are references and mean that the paper is going off of what someone else did. The ones citing may or may not be experts in the fields and topic they quote from, but, they cite it in support of their arguments, steps and research. One need not be an expert to quote from experts. Also, being an expert in one field does not make one an expert in other fields, I'm sure you know that.
  
  So, when Nick or I quote, we need not be experts just as you are not.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 6th, 2011

• The build up of the prerequisite assemblages for the a-biogenetical process did not need to happen at the same time or even in the same place as the a-biogenetical process itself. You are failing to understand and its getting old. Not to mention that you haven’t provided anything to support your position other than your opinion and that’s not worth a lot. At least I have the decency to support what I said with reliable sources.
  
  ““The diversity of chemical species likely to have been present under prebiotic conditions and the proven utility of multicomponent reactions (MCRs) to yield biologically relevant structures4,5,8 suggested that the development of novel MCRs could lead to the rapid buildup of molecular complexity and, in particular, to the structures that are central to molecular biology.”
  
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Powner_et_al_2010_JACS.pdf
  “It is only about the merits of the arguments being laid out. “
  
  Ok heres some “logic” for you then that I shall apply to your beliefs. You cant prove that a god exists or that life is intelligently designed. So believing such things is not logical. Simple logic.
  
  “you understand what the numbers like [8] mean when placed in articles such”
  
  I wont dignify that slanderous underhanded insult with a response.
  
  “One need not be an expert to quote from experts”
  
  Yeah but you need to understand what your quoting, and you’ve continuously failed to do so.
  
  “So, when Nick or I quote, we need not be experts just as you are not.”
  
  Yeah but im not attempting to say that the “experts” are wrong based on my opinion of their work like you are NOS.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 6th, 2011

• gilapsy
  
  Quote, "The build up of the prerequisite assemblages for the a-biogenetical process did not need to happen at the same time or even in the same place as the a-biogenetical process itself. You are failing to understand and its getting old."
  
  No. Whether you argue it was done in stages from another location it still needs to be brought together and that is not possible under the acidic ocean of preboitic earth. Phosphate is a key component of this experiment and what allowed Szostak to circumvent the problem with sugars. This is what falsifies this experiment.
  
  "Polyphosphates and inorganic phosphates are the most plausible source of phosphate in a prebiotic
  scenario, but the main problem for the association of phosphate with nucleic bases and ribose—besides
  the lack of a plausible reaction mechanism under primitive earth conditions—is the availability of
  dissolved phosphate in the slightly acidic prebiotic sea: polyphosphates would quickly hydrolyze and
  phosphate ions precipitate as insoluble compounds of metal ions like Ca2+ as indicated by many rocks
  and minerals consisting of metal phosphates."
  
  You can't ignore that.
  
  Quote, "Ok heres some “logic” for you then that I shall apply to your beliefs. You cant prove that a god exists or that life is intelligently designed. So believing such things is not logical. Simple logic."
  
  1. I never claimed I could prove God exists by way of empirical data. You have to understand the difference between "proofs" from deductive logic and "likeliness" from inductive logic. In the case with abiogenesis and emirical data and the rest of science, it is the inductive logic that is used most often. I gave you the logically deductive as well up above anyways.
  
  2. As to your point about not being able to believe something not empirically proved, this is what is not logical. If you maintain that you can only believe what can be proven via the scientific method you would have to discard so many things as to make life unlivable. People don't hold themselves to the strict requirements of deductive logic. It is only in deductive logic where anything can be said to be proved, or in mathematics. If you do hold yourself to deductive logic, guess what?..... You can't believe Szostak's experiment as even he himself in his latest paper admits many assumptions in order to conduct his experiment.
  
  Quote, "Yeah but im not attempting to say that the “experts” are wrong based on my opinion of their work like you are NOS."
  
  If I cannot say an expert is wrong due to the fact I myself am not an expert then it must also be true that you yourself cannot say something an expert says is true because you are not an expert. It goes both ways. BTW, its still wrong, your own logic refutes you.
  
  Oh and I'm not calling the experts wrong by my opinion. Its from Szostak's premise and the evidence that refutes it and good ol logic.
  
  
  One more thing, I didn't intend to offend you. Don't see how you took it that way. But I do apologize for that.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 6th, 2011

• “If I cannot say an expert is wrong due to the fact I myself am not an expert then it must also be true that you yourself cannot say something an expert says is true because you are not an expert. It goes both ways. BTW, its still wrong, your own logic refutes you.”
  
  That doesn’t make any sense. I may not be able to verify what an “expert” says is true independently but I don’t need to. That’s the point of the peer review process in the first place, to be able to trust in the reliability and correctness of expert publications. You do not have the authority to declare Dr. Szostak’s publications invalid. Try as you might but you are not qualified to make such declarations.
  
  So, again, for the last time, provide something other than your opinion NOS.
  
  “I never claimed I could prove God exists by way of empirical data.”
  Yet you believe it anyways. What a hypocrite, for someone who puts so much stock in “logic and facts” you completely break from your own standards to accommodate your favorite fantasy.
  
  “As to your point about not being able to believe something not empirically proved, this is what is not logical. If you maintain that you can only believe what can be”
  
  Look you cant put fantasies about imaginary super beings into the same category as the simple assumptions we make every day in order to facilitate our existence. Believing my toothpaste isn’t poisoned is a much different type of assumption than the assumption that an imaginary super being created the universe. You conflate the definition of those sorts of necessary assumptions with something that allows for the logical belief in whatever fantasy a person can dream up.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 6th, 2011

• Quote, "That doesn’t make any sense. I may not be able to verify what an “expert” says is true independently but I don’t need to."
  
  Correct, you don't need to. But you are making the assertions. Problem is you are disqualifying me based on the fact I am not an expert. If this is the case, you yourself cannot qualify your views since you are not an expert. It goes both ways.
  
  Furthermore, my expertise is not needed as all one has to do is use logic. If C, then, A is plausible. Problem is NOT C, therefore, A not plausible under those circumstances. Theory debunked if the method is debunked. You can hope for another route I suppose.
  
  I said: “I never claimed I could prove God exists by way of empirical data.”
  
  To which you responded...
  
  "Yet you believe it anyways. What a hypocrite, for someone who puts so much stock in “logic and facts” you completely break from your own standards to accommodate your favorite fantasy."
  
  Did you completely forget inductive logic? I mean, I just posted the example how in science inductive is what is used NOT deductive when it comes to most parts of science, especially theories. So I can put faith in an uncaused cause on inductive logic alone. AND I also gave you a deductive argument above.
  
  And again, I will remind you, you yourself are putting faith in unproven methods and theories. Szostak's experiment, despite what YOUTUBE says, is not confirmed or factual in the sense you are saying it is. I just posted the peer reviewed article killing this notion.
  
  Quote, "Look you cant put fantasies about imaginary super beings into the same category as the simple assumptions we make every day in order to facilitate our existence."
  
  No. It is the only logical explanation. You can straw man this situation as many times as you want but the fact is an uncaused cause is a logical necessity.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 6th, 2011

• Have you noticed to what your responses generally revolve around when it comes to arguments and refutations?
  
  
  Poisoning the well.
  "Poisoning the well (or attempting to poison the well) is a logical fallacy where adverse information about a target is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that the target person is about to say."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
  
  
  Stacking the deck.
  "A fallacy in which any evidence that supports an opposing argument is simply rejected, omitted, or ignored."
  http://grammar.about.com/od/rs/g/stackingthedeckterm.htm
  

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 6th, 2011

• Need I remind you that experts once thought the earth was flat and the earth is the center of the universe and that man will never fly and that the breathable atmosphere extends on forever.
  
  There are countless things that have changed over time. While I respect the "experts" it is important to realize that they are wrong in many cases, not intentionally but simply because new information becomes available.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 6th, 2011

• None of us here is qualified to refute the documented expert evidence I presented asserting the plausibility of the abiogenetical process. None of you has provided direct expert evidence refuting the evidence I provided. Your own opinions as laymen are not authority to dismiss the expert evidence I provided no matter how highly you think of yourself.
  
  If any of you provide expert evidence contradictory to the expert evidence I provided then that will be an entirely different conversation.
  
  As it stands the hard and careful work of dedicated scientists seeking to expand our understanding have provided us with a probably path for the creation of life according to natural processes. This represents a complete overthrow of the past paradigm. For all of history it has been common belief that some god or other was the creator of life and I understand your reluctance to shed your beliefs in light of this new knowledge. Ive heard before that old scientists never change their minds and they must die and a new generation replace them before old false perceptions can ever really take hold. Your stone aged adherence to your gods will not be shared by the enlightened future generations who will not see the world clouded by the dogma of religion.
  
  Feel free to argue your actual case, that god exists and that life was designed by intelligence. Provide some evidence, some expert evidence. Id be more than happy to change my mind. You laymen of religious leanings can declare blasphemy from the tower walls and assert in your arrogance that the world is flat, er hem I mean that life was created by god, but it is futile.
  
  The old view will be swept away and future generations will look back and laugh at us the same way we look back and laugh at those who came before us for believing disease was caused by angry spirits and that the stars were moved about by gods in the sky. You can fight the progress but you can not stop it. Try as you might you can not stop it.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 6th, 2011

• Do you or do you not comprehend logic?
  
  For one to say that, because someone is a laymen, he must therefore be wrong or his view must be incorrect is illogical.
  
  Once again, if we apply this sort of logic, your logic, you cannot claim that Szostak's experiment is correct and the paper I cited regarding the ph of the ocean and so forth is incorrect. Why? Because you are not an expert and therefore cannot make any claim for or against its validity.
  
  See how that line of reason fails you? I really hope you do, this is elementary logic here.
  
  What makes you offer this stuff up?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 6th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "None of you has provided direct expert evidence refuting the evidence I provided."
  
  By what possible logic can you disregard what I cited? Wanna guess the fallacy this commits?
  
  Cherry picking (stacking the deck)
  
  Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias. Cherry picking may be committed unintentionally.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking_(fallacy)

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 6th, 2011

• “Why? Because you are not an expert and therefore cannot make any claim for or against its validity.
  
  See how that line of reason fails you? “
  
  It does not. The system of peer review is the certainty I need. It is thanks to that system that I do not need to be an expert to trust the truth of the papers I cited. You choose to ignore this in spite of me having explained it multiple times.
  
  “By what possible logic can you disregard what I cited?”
  
  Because of one of a few reasons, either the paper you cited was outdated and new discoveries had rendered it irrelevant, the paper didn’t claim what you attempted to say it did, or you used your opinion of its contents instead of its contents, or it wasn’t a reliable peer reviewed source. Or in the case where you don’t cite any source there is no evidence to back up what you say.
  
  I have high standards of proof because the subject is too serious for anything less. Claims of divine beings require nothing less than such high standards due to their real world implications.
  
  I do not attempt to speak on my own authority, instead I speak on the authority of the expert evidence reviewed by other experts. By holding myself to that standard I rise above possible rebuke from the likes of the layman such as yourself. I do not attempt to claim anything that the expert evidence does not explicitly state.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 6th, 2011

• But wait a minute, you just now professed faith. You acknowledge you are not an expert and yet you believe. You have not verified it nor are an expert yet you believe. This is faith or credulity.
  
  Secondly you are not being consistent. You claim you follow peer review but when a peer reviewed article is presented that contradicts what you believe, you toss it aside in favor of the one that you prefer without justification. This is bias dictating your belief... Which is fine, thats your choice.
  
  Again I ask, what allows you to do this?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 6th, 2011

• Quote, "The system of peer review is the certainty I need."
  
  But this is not proof. As good as peer review may be, it is not truth. As you even state, beliefs are adjusted with time and things we believe or believed change over time. So this isn't certainty, its faith or credulity.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 6th, 2011

• “you just now professed faith”
  
  I did not. Faith is by definition belief without reason. In this case there is ample good reason. Do not conflate trusting expert review of other expert work with believing in imaginary beings for whose existence no one can provide any evidence.
  
  “By what possible logic can you disregard what I cited?”
  
  Because of one of a few reasons, either the paper you cited was outdated and new discoveries had rendered it irrelevant, the paper didn’t claim what you attempted to say it did, or you used your opinion of its contents instead of its contents, or it wasn’t a reliable peer reviewed source. Or in the case where you don’t cite any source there is no evidence to back up what you say.
  
  I have high standards of proof because the subject is too serious for anything less. Claims of divine beings require nothing less than such high standards due to their real world implications.
  
  I do not attempt to speak on my own authority, instead I speak on the authority of the expert evidence reviewed by other experts. By holding myself to that standard I rise above possible rebuke from the likes of the layman such as yourself. I do not attempt to claim anything that the expert evidence does not explicitly state.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 6th, 2011

• “or credulity”
  
  That would imply that im ready to believe and have a low standard for proof. When its experts reviewing the work of an expert obviously credulity is not relevant.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 6th, 2011

• Faith is belief without proof not belief without reason. Belief without proof or reason is more in line with credulity. Notice I used both of those words and the word "or".
  
  Quote, "Because of one of a few reasons, either the paper you cited was outdated and new discoveries had rendered it irrelevant, the paper didn’t claim what you attempted to say it did, or you used your opinion of its contents instead of its contents, or it wasn’t a reliable peer reviewed source."
  
  What are the new discoveries that rendered it irrelevant? Is it in a peer reviewed article? If so post it. The paper said the ph was acidic and phosphates and formaldehyde would not remain for to long, if they were even there. The 3 points are relevant and kill the experiments plausibility. You just chose to ignore it, cherry picking fallacy. I didn't use my opinion I quoted directly and in context. Now you are telling me its not reliable? How do you know that? For the love of Pete, Szostak's own paper stated the conditions were assumed. Get it? There is no proof. You are not even staying consistent with what Szostak admits. You just included your own opinion of the conditions of prebiotic earth.
  
  Do you understand logic or not?
  
  You say you have high standards, yet, you toss out logic. Logic is the standard. You cannot sustain any plausible argument yet you claim its your standard? I agree that claims of divine beings require high standards, but, why don't you also apply that to prebiotic earth? It seems you only apply high standards to others and not yourself. You are happy to swallow whatever peer reviewed says so long as it fits your world view. You haven't taken any arguments on that we have laid out with any relevant rebuttals. All you are focusing on now is how I'm not an expert. What kind of high standard is that? You are not interested in correct reasoning, inference and deduction. What is your deal? You use kettle logic.
  
  You claim to speak not your own thoughts only those of the experts... that my friend is faith or credulity. You just admitted again that you are following others findings and yet you have no way of verifying if those standards are high or even correct.
  
  You are a pretender. Just a bit ago I put the argument in simple logic but you ignored that in favor of saying I was incorrect because I'm a laymen. That doesn't meet any high standard of any kind.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 6th, 2011

• You are just using ad Hominem's and fallacious calls to authority. What kind of standard is that? Are you able to offer any relevant rebuttal or is that about as relevant as you can get?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 6th, 2011

• Gillaspy, did you really study the paper?
  
  http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/JournalsSup/images/Sample/FOB_4(SI1)1-21o.pdf
  
  You assert contrary to the facts: "That paper doesn’t mention god or intelligent design...":
  
  Some excerpts:
  
  "Also, none of the intelligent design proponents (see again Behe 1996/2006; Dembski 1998; Dembski and Wells 2007; Lönnig 2004, 2009b; Meyer 2009; and many of the further authors critical to Darwinism mentioned in the introduction above, not to mention the time-honoured school of German botanists of the so-called idealistic morphology going back to Goethe 1790; cf. Troll 1984) – which is henceforth called viewpoint C – would hypothezise that the morphological potential of the basic bauplan of the angiosperms already involved the realization of a specific feature like the ICS from its very beginning. Thus, according to all known scientific theories on the origin of species, the ICS constitutes an apomorphic character."
  
  That viewpoint C is then discussed at length in the following sections concerning Physalis. "...it [the paper] doesn’t even claim to overturn the entire concept of evolution" - this is exactly what the law of recurrent variation does. Much more could be said, but I am still wondering if is it really worth while to argue with a person who does not want to understand? Well, perhaps in case of a larger audience to show them how wrong the views of such people can be.
  
  If you have time you can see also the peer-edited paper:
  
  http://www.weloennig.de/DynamicGenomes.pdf

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 7th, 2011

• Last thing Gillaspy, if you have "faith" in your family do you have so "without reason"???

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 7th, 2011

• 1) Peer reviewed documented evidence of a plausible natural way for life to have started without any god and without any extremely improbable events.
  
  2) Failure to prove in a high profile court case that intelligent design is based on any real evidence.
  
  As far as im concerned that is case closed. The entire Christian and larger religious community had every motivation to do all in their power to provide the best evidence they could to prove that intelligent design is worth being taught as at least a theory in schools. They failed. Think about that for a minute.
  
  A Nobel laureate professor of Genetics at Harvard medical school proves it is plausible that life started naturally, his work is checked out by other experts and no mistakes are found.
  
  Seriously guys you can argue till youre blue in the face but that is the end of the rational conversation.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 7th, 2011

• Nick about your guy you like to cite.
  
  “Thus, the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations." (Lönnig, as quoted in Awake! September 2006, p.15)
  
  It seems that the "law of recurrent variation" is not a genuine law of science at all! It traces back to Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a geneticist at the prestigious Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding in Germany. It appears that Lönnig was censored for using the official Max Planck Institute website to advance his personal belief in Intelligent Design. Given his Internet "crusade" for ID, it is not surprising that he authored a paper around 2002 claiming that natural selection cannot give rise to new species. Far from being supported by a scientific law, that view is rejected by the vast majority of biologists.
  
  On the Internet (Google) I found something like 8 distinct references to "law of recurrent variation," perhaps as many as 41 if duplication is counted. Those 8 were from creationist sites quoting Lönnig. Compare that to the "law of reflection," a real law of nature, one that has about 35,000 references on Google. Awake! has not done its homework.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 7th, 2011

• LOL! I beat you to it. I already read that website from that mathematician you cite. Nice cut and paste job. You are a "bluff intellect" and don't even give credit where its due. Your source did not debunk anything. Awake! and Lonnig have done their homework. Like others before you, you can't see past your own "plausible" theories and assumptions.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 7th, 2011

• gilapsy, the papers you cited doesn't state this was proof. Dr. Szostak himself doesn't make that claim. Do you know something about the experiment that Dr. Szostak doesn't? On what grounds can you claim this is proof?
  
  
  
  And BTW, you ignored the paper I cited showing that the ocean was acidic and therefore taking away any plausibility you tried to claim.
  
  There is more... Did you see that Szostak used activated nucleotides that he created? He didn't exactly let "chemical law" do much.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 7th, 2011

• Again you are ignoring the fact that if Szostak was successful in his experiment all it proves is that creating life requires intelligence. The earth has an infinite number of variables at play.
  
  His experiment whether or not it matched the earth's conditions only proves that intelligence is required to create complex forms.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 7th, 2011

• Nick
  
  Your guy is a hack censured by his university for spouting garbage on their web site. His ideas are discredited and worthless.
  
  NOS
  
  Who said it had to be an ocean. Anyways your layman opinion is worth next to nothing.
  
  OMO
  
  It takes intelligence to recreate the circumstances that existed naturally billions of years ago. It takes intelligence to understand what is going on in the process. But the process itself does not require intelligence, that is the whole point that you dumbly refuse to see.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 8th, 2011

• Can you point out any observable process happening right now in nature in which something simple turns into something exceedingly complex?

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 8th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Um... You really don't have anything to say do you?
  
  Your best responses now are "you're a laymen". No matter what anyone says, so long as you can say "you're a laymen" you think you really said something.
  
  Or is it that your ego has suffered much recently and you are taking some kind of delusional and fleeting comfort in repeating that line?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 8th, 2011

• 1) Peer reviewed documented evidence of a plausible natural way for life to have started without any god and without any extremely improbable events.
  
  2) Failure to prove in a high profile court case that intelligent design is based on any real evidence.
  
  As far as im concerned that is case closed. The entire Christian and larger religious community had every motivation to do all in their power to provide the best evidence they could to prove that intelligent design is worth being taught as at least a theory in schools. They failed. Think about that for a minute.
  
  A Nobel laureate professor of Genetics at Harvard medical school proves it is plausible that life started naturally, his work is checked out by other experts and no mistakes are found.
  
  Seriously guys you can argue till youre blue in the face but that is the end of the rational conversation.
  
  seriously until youre blue in the face it wont change the facts fellas

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 8th, 2011

• What is so incredibly funny is what you quote as an argument to discredit Loennig’s peer reviewed paper a paragraph filled with informal fallacies having no documentation. Take for example the bald argumentum ad hominem against the Scientist Loennig., I’ll start with your assault after the Awake quote you listed for context:
  
  “It seems that the "law of recurrent variation" is not a genuine law of science at all! It traces back to Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, a geneticist at the prestigious Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding in Germany. It appears that Lönnig was censored (1) for using the official Max Planck Institute website to advance his personal belief in Intelligent Design (2). Given his Internet "crusade" for ID, it is not surprising that he authored a paper around 2002 claiming that natural selection cannot give rise to new species. Far from being supported by a scientific law, that view is rejected by the vast majority of biologists (3).”
  
  You stated the exact comments posted on a religious forum on 9-11-2010 10:05 pm by a poster monikered, ”jarofthoughts” this is located at the following address:
  
  http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/evolution-vs-creationism/103055-creationists-please-provide-evidence-47.html
  
  You may not even realize what you are quoting is an (1) unsupported ad hominem about Loennig and from (2) hearsay, which then appealed to an unsupported (3) argumentum ad numerum.
  
  Continuing on in your attempted argument against the paper you make an attack against a specific concept mentioned:
  
  “On the Internet (Google) I found something like 8 distinct references to "law of recurrent variation," perhaps as many as 41 if duplication is counted. Those 8 were from creationist sites quoting Lönnig. Compare that to the "law of reflection," a real law of nature, one that has about 35,000(4) references on Google [how many of these are duplicates?????]. Awake! has not done its homework.”(5)
  
  Again , you are playing a number comparison game with (4) and (5) is a non sequitur. What does quantity have to do with quality? How does unqualified quantity on one side prove a lack of research on the other? Ridiculous!
  
  I’m sure you are content in giving yourself a measure of glory and berating all that disagree with you. All you revealed is that you do not read or understand the proofs offered but I understand your desperation. You really haven’t a leg on which to stand, and deep-down you know it. I do thank you for your time in this discussion.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 8th, 2011

• sorry nick but that guy made up his own "law" and got laughed out of town because no one but the ID wackos took him seriously. then he started "publishing" (if you can even call it that) in some "journals" (if you can call them that) that arent taken seriously by the scientific community. A quote by loennig
  
  "Mutations cannot transform an original species of plant or animal into an entirely new one. this conclusion agrees with all the research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. Thus the law of recurrent variation implies that genetically properly defined species have real boundries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations."
  
  Sounds great except that speciation has been proven, repeatedly, for decades. And the mechanisms of evolution including mutation have never shown any divine hand at play. See informative Berkeley pages for your basic education.
  
  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_40
  
  and seriously who cares what type of argument i use? you deconstruct my words like it makes you seem smarter but im not impressed because no matter how hard you try.
  
  1) Peer reviewed documented evidence of a plausible natural way for life to have started without any god and without any extremely improbable events.
  
  2) Failure to prove in a high profile court case that intelligent design is based on any real evidence.
  
  As far as im concerned that is case closed. The entire Christian and larger religious community had every motivation to do all in their power to provide the best evidence they could to prove that intelligent design is worth being taught as at least a theory in schools. They failed. Think about that for a minute.
  
  A Nobel laureate professor of Genetics at Harvard medical school proves it is plausible that life started naturally, his work is checked out by other experts and no mistakes are found.
  
  Seriously guys you can argue till youre blue in the face but that is the end of the rational conversation.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 8th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  "1) Peer reviewed documented evidence of a plausible natural way for life to have started without any god and without any extremely improbable events."
  
  Umm... An event that is not likely is not plausible. The evidence states that the environment, where the event is supposed to have taken place, is not supported by evidence and therefore the results are not based on the likely environment and therefore unlikely if not flat out wrong. In addition, the experiment was conducted by researchers (intelligence) and therefore does not establish or suggest it could have happened via chemical laws alone. Which BTW is what you need for your first point to stand.
  
  "2) Failure to prove in a high profile court case that intelligent design is based on any real evidence."
  
  The fact that something is decided in court does not therefore mean it is correct. This is absolutely illogical.
  
  I guess you went from "you're a laymen" to cherry picking (again) and to "it was decided in court". So we got "you're a laymen" (ad Hominem) cherry picking (ignoring peer reviewed articles that don't support your position) and "it was decided in court" (call to authority).
  
  Anymore fallacies in the bag? Or will it be the three you've seemed to master?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 8th, 2011

• Quote, "Seriously guys you can argue till youre blue in the face but that is the end of the rational conversation."
  
  Oh PUH-LEEZ... Who do you think you are fooling?
  
  This is like a train wreck.. Its horrible but one can't help but watch.
  
  With what "answer in a can" will you respond with next? I think it is safe to say that more fallacies are in store.
  
  
  Oh the suspense.... :D

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 8th, 2011

• Sounds great except that speciation has been proven, repeatedly, for decades. And the mechanisms of evolution including mutation have never shown any divine hand at play. See informative Berkeley pages for your basic education.
  
  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_40
  
  
  How do you define a species? I always thought it was based on the number of chromosomes. That link was not accurate. The flies are still flies. That is like saying that different races of humans are different species except with the minor problem that all humans can get together and have mixed race kids.
  
  All it is showing is natural selection at work. Imagine snow rabbits that are not white are easier to spot by predators. All the brown and black rabbits are eaten. However the snow rabbit can still mate with a rabbit if they come into contact with each other in a different location because they are still rabbits.
  
  All dogs, wolfs, coyotes are able to breed. However a dog and a cow could not. The dog has 78 chromosomes while the cow has 60.
  
  Unless something can magically grow or lose a chromosome I don't think you can call it a new species but only a variation of a species. However I'm sure you'll try to correct me somehow

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 9th, 2011

• Gillaspy, I find it interesting that you can quote the basic rules of "peer review" yet in your rebuttal you quote unnamed sources from the internet. Were these all peer reviewed? Does the number of hits count in peer review? How do you khow they are true and accurate at all? I guess this bring an end to this discussion, at least for me since Gillaspy has conceded that it is going nowhere. Have a good weekend gentlemen. Last one hit the lights.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 9th, 2011

• gilaspy, if you are going to answer OMO, it would be crucial for you to define "species". Then, and only then, can we see if you are correct.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 9th, 2011

• OMO
  A tiger, pig, and sea otter all have 38 chromosomes. Ill leave it to you to decide if the number of chromosomes is what defines species.
  
  Reference
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organisms_by_chromosome_count
  
  Species usually refers to a population with the ability to reproduce and produce viable offspring. However many bacteria do not reproduce sexually so that definition isn’t appropriate in all cases. Also some populations may be capable of producing viable hybrids with another population even though the two look different and we usually count them as separate species (crows, oak trees). “Species” is a word we humans made up back in the days when it was believed that all species remained the same forever. But don’t take my word for it, Berkeley is a reliably source for this information.
  http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_41
  
  Nick
  Sure I was lazy in just doing a copy paste job about loennig at first but then I looked further into it and found that quote by him about his belief and explained why its wrong and provided links to the Berkeley site to help you understand. It is true that he is a joke in the serious biological science community because he believes things that are directly contradicted (and have been for decades) by the evidence. However that doesn’t excuse me from actually explaining like I did the second time. Loennig is very old school in the sense that he rejects new information in favor of the old stuff that when looked at in isolation might seem to indicate that what he claims is true. For example he said something like and im vaguely paraphrasing here “ive never seen a new species of plant spontaneously emerge in all my decades of breeding plants”. Now that is a valid point and when looked at in isolation it is easy to see why he might believe what he does. But he is breeding a small closed population so it is not really reasonable to expect a new species in that scenario. In fact the odds against it happening are so small that it would probably never happen. Now, if you want to take him seriously you go right on ahead.
  
  NOS
  
  Here is the abstract for a paper written by Szostak about those environments you and omo keep claiming are so “improbable”.
  
  “Recent synthetic approaches to understanding the origin of life have yielded insights into plausible pathways for the emergence of the first cells. Here we review current experiments with implications for the origin of life, emphasizing the ability of unexpected physical processes to facilitate the self-assembly and self-replication of the first biological systems. These laboratory efforts have uncovered novel physical mechanisms for the emergence of homochirality; the concentration and purification of prebiotic building blocks; and the ability of the first cells to assemble, grow, divide, and acquire greater complexity. In the absence of evolved biochemical capabilities, such physical processes likely played an essential role in early biology.”
  
  Here is the link to the full paper
  
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_Ann_Rev_BP_2010.pdf
  
  I sincerely hope this helps you understand better.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 9th, 2011

• I just read a bit. Its more of the same, really.
  
  I didn't find any references regarding the environment, did you?
  
  I'll read further when I have a chance. But, do you understand why its important? I don't think you do.
  
  Think about it: Someone says, "this is plausible because" and they give you details on what is needed but don't show you that what is needed was actually available, it is not therefore plausible. That is a key factor.
  
  A baker, a mathematician, a chemist, etc, get together and show how a cake can be assembled without an intelligence but they leave out the circumstances or say they "circumstances just were" or "we'll just assume the circumstances" it wouldn't be very convincing. If one didn't question the circumstances what would you think about such a person? You'd think they were credulous especially if they asserted strongly something that lacked such a key issue.
  
  And thats just the circumstances... I mean, the Szostak experiment does much more than just add a few chemicals to the mix.
  
  Not to mention the whole "activated nucleotides" Szostak made for the experiment. Oh and there is at least one more crucial factor having to do with the mixture and phosphates. But I think you get the point.
  
  Chemical laws alone is not what happened in the Szostak experiment.
  
  See ya tomorrow or Monday.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 9th, 2011

• well NOS i guesse you and Szostak disagree then. I guesse i can take your word for it or his and i bet you know what way im leaning. After all he is an expert and other experts review his work.
  
  from the intro to that paper
  
  "Given the diverse geochemicalmicroenvironments of early Earth, and the
  varied geophysical means of chemical transport between them, there is also considerable potential for enviromental phenomena to assist
  in the origin of life. Such processes allowed for the synthesis of constitutionally and chirally enriched biomolecules, their self-assembly into primitive biological systems, and the ability of those systems to self-replicate and evolve into the complex cells that followed; all tasks that have long since been taken over by evolved biological machinery.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 9th, 2011

• Wasn't it that Szostak’s youtube video which showed a goo bubble dividing due to wave action, that only increases it’s biomass of ingredients by predating on smaller goo bubbles that it bumps into by sucking out their innards, exactly like big soap bubbles do. Hmmm, now we know where this highly praised biologist got his idea.
  
  I wouldn’t dignify this theoretical bubble to call it a “cell” unless we give it it’s own numbered definition, right after terrorist sleeper covens or excel worksheet boxes. Gillaspy, I believe you are a 1 trick pony come full circle to a previous questionable argument, like if you stated, “As I was saying, the piltdown man shows plausible possibility”. You are too busy singing Disney’s “When you wish upon a star” for any serious dialogue. Good day.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 10th, 2011

• Sure nick, if that helps you sleep at night. I know how you religious types have a hard time coming to grips with the facts.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 10th, 2011

• From the intro to the paper? Tell me the truth, thats about as much as you read, right?
  
  Did you notice how you keep pasting the assertions but are leaving OUT the FACTS to support those assertions? Could it be because Szostak's paper doesn't cite any since they kill his experiment? Sure looks like it. The other papers you posted on his work didn't have any and this latest one seems to be the same thing.
  
  
  It seems like you're leaving details out or are happy without them when they don't support what you believe. Does that help you sleep a little better? After the toll you ego has suffered these past weeks it sounds like your willing to try anything at this point. Including burying your head in the sand when it comes to these little inconvenient but crucial facts cited that show Szostak's experiment was not as people are led to believe by your youtube video.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 10th, 2011

• Yeah NOS, im sure youre right, Harvard Nobel laureate is lying in a conspiracy to cover up the truth. That must be it… If that’s what you need to tell yourself to sleep at night go ahead. I know you religious types need have a hard time coming to grips with the facts.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 10th, 2011

• Who said Dr. Szostak is lying? I certainly didn't. He doesn't state what the conditions were and he admits it is assumed and doesn't pretend to offer any data. I am pointing it out.
  
  It would be great if you didn't make claims that Dr. Szostak doesn't make. Hmmm.... Should I take your word or Dr. Szostak? LOL.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 10th, 2011

• Sounds like gillaspy01 is putting words in Dr. Szostak's mouth, not claiming he's lying.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 10th, 2011

• Listen NOS and OMO
  
  I am not putting words in Szostaks mouth. I quoted exactly what he wrote. Here ill quote it again so you can see.
  
  “Recent synthetic approaches to understanding the origin of life have yielded insights into plausible pathways for the emergence of the first cells. Here we review current experiments with implications for the origin of life, emphasizing the ability of unexpected physical processes to facilitate the self-assembly and self-replication of the first biological systems. These laboratory efforts have uncovered novel physical mechanisms for the emergence of homochirality; the concentration and purification of prebiotic building blocks; and the ability of the first cells to assemble, grow, divide, and acquire greater complexity. In the absence of evolved biochemical capabilities, such physical processes likely played an essential role in early biology.”
  
  And
  
  "Given the diverse geochemical microenvironments of early Earth, and the varied geophysical means of chemical transport between them, there is also considerable potential for enviromental phenomena to assist in the origin of life. Such processes allowed for the synthesis of constitutionally and chirally enriched biomolecules, their self-assembly into primitive biological systems, and the ability of those systems to self-replicate and evolve into the complex cells that followed; all tasks that have long since been taken over by evolved biological machinery.”
  
  So, szostak is claiming there is a natural process for life to have gotten started, and that there is evidence to support it. He gives evidence about the chemistry of that process and the environments in where that is possible naturally.
  
  Obviously im not putting words in any ones mouth. So if you think you know better that szostak and that his evidence is flawed because you know better than a nobel laureate head of genetics from Harvard and the experts who put their careers and reputations on the line to review his work then go ahead and think that. Or if you think theres some conspiracy here where every ones lying because they hate god then go ahead and think that too. Believe whatever you want, no one can make you accept reality.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 11th, 2011

• Saying, "Recent synthetic approaches to understanding the origin of life have yielded insights into plausible pathways for the emergence of the first cells." is not the same as "this is how it happened" or "this is proof of how it happened". You have to understand what the youtube video is leading you to believe versus what Dr. Szostak is actually saying. All he is saying is that his research has "yielded insights".
  
  Saying, "Given the diverse geochemical microenvironments of early Earth, and the varied geophysical means of chemical transport between them, there is also considerable potential for enviromental phenomena to assist in the origin of life." without giving the actual data on the environment does not therefore make something plausible. Plausible is a HUGE word (not talking about the number of letters) its significance is much larger than can be used in this instance without the actual environmental conditions of prebiotic earth.
  
  Here is more from the last link you gave: "Recent experimental work
  has uncovered plausible physical pathways and
  mechanisms for at least some of these putative
  steps in the origin and early evolution of life."
  
  Its not the same thing as what you are claiming Dr. Szostak is saying.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 12th, 2011

• I wonder if Gillaspy would define "plausible" for those listening?

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 12th, 2011

• I said: "Plausible is a HUGE word (not talking about the number of letters) its significance is much larger than can be used in this instance without the actual environmental conditions of prebiotic earth."
  
  It should be "plausible environmental conditions of prebiotic earth"
  
  Sorry, I just saw that and it bugged me...
  
  
  Nick you bring up a good suggestion. Gilaspy, please define "plausible" for us and then show us how it fits your assertions. Then show how it fits Dr. Szostak's words in his article.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 12th, 2011

• Plausible: a reasonable explanation, possible and not unlikely.
  
  Claiming to know for certain is impossible because no one was there to see. Maybe a god popped into our universe and commanded the molecules to configure into life before departing to the neither realms from where it came. The best anyone can do is point to a natural process and say that it is possible and not unlikely and or plausible it led to life emerging. No real scientist would say “I know this is how it happened exactly” because there is no direct observation to confirm such a statement.
  
  If I write a paper about how plants use the sun to get energy by photosynthesis do I need to prove that there are sunny environments for such a process to take place? No, obviously that’s silly. In the same way Szostak does not need to prove that the prebiotic environments existed when discussing the processes that took place in them. There are plenty of scientists who have provided us with detailed understandings of the various environmental conditions present on the prebiotic earth and that research is a stone upon where szostaks research is built.
  
  These scientific papers aren’t written for the laymans consumption and their lack of redundant basics does not constitute a failure to provide evidence.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 12th, 2011

• Quote, "The best anyone can do is point to a natural process and say that it is possible and not unlikely and or plausible it led to life emerging."
  
  No that isn't the best anyone can do. This is to presuppose there does not exists a reality apart from the physical universe. Which BTW is wrong. Quite simply, if the physical universe came into existence a finite time ago, over 13 billion years ago, then whatever it was that preceded it must logically be super-physical or super-natural.
  
  
  Quote, "If I write a paper about how plants use the sun to get energy by photosynthesis do I need to prove that there are sunny environments for such a process to take place? No, obviously that’s silly."
  
  Of course it would be silly because we all already accept the process of photosynthesis. BUT (and here is a BIG BUT) it would be silly to assert photosynthesis if there were no plausible evidence to support this idea. Evidence is what leads to new discoveries of physical/natural realities NOT the mere assertions.
  
  Quote, "In the same way Szostak does not need to prove that the prebiotic environments existed when discussing the processes that took place in them."
  
  And who has made the argument that prebiotic conditions did not exist? We certainly have not done so. What is being challenged, and what you seem to be unable to grasp or willfully and conveniently ignoring, is that the conditions that Dr. Szostak's experiment were conducted under are not, I repeat NOT supported by the evidence. Your next sentence puzzles me.
  
  Quote, "There are plenty of scientists who have provided us with detailed understandings of the various environmental conditions present on the prebiotic earth and that research is a stone upon where szostaks research is built."
  
  Why don't you cite those papers then? I asked you that already and this has been what our conversation has been about lately. Why doesn't Dr. Szostak cite those references? Look and see for yourself, there are none. On the other hand I did cite references that killed the Szostak experiment and you just brushed them off when pressed for an argument and just mention over and over that Szostak is a Noble Laurette winner.
  
  Quote, "These scientific papers aren’t written for the laymans consumption and their lack of redundant basics does not constitute a failure to provide evidence."
  
  This is a cop out. You just stated that Dr. Szostak's experiment was built on some stone of prior evidence that shows the prebiotic earth's conditions but are now saying it doesn't contain the references because its not for laymens. LOL!!! Are you serious? Look at his paper, it is filled with references just as any article in peer review has if it claims something to be true or supported by prior experiments and investigation. Yets, none of the papers you cite have any references for prebiotic conditions consistent with the model given by Dr. Szostak. This is not consistent with scientific induction and therefore not plausible.
  
  And, if you have forgotten, he admits they are assumed, the conditions that is. They are assumed not supported. Plausible this is not.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 12th, 2011

• NOS
  
  Good luck with that, thinking you know more than szostak. Good luck squeezing that ego through the pearly gates and into heaven. Maybe you should practice some of that humility and accept that maybe youre wrong. Then again I havent dedicated my life around an idea being threatened by the evidence so its probably easy for me to say that. Exactly how objective do you think youre being in looking at this situation nos?
  
  And if there is some “supernatural realm” like you mentioned then lets see some evidence. Possible is a long ways from plausible when it comes to gods. Im willing to grant you possible, but sans evidence its not worth much.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 12th, 2011

• “whatever it was that preceded it must logically be super-physical or super-natural.”
  
  Technically there was nothing that “preceded” the big bang because time didn’t exist before then. There is no cause and effect relationship for the big bang because there was no “before” during which a cause could take place. Fabricating a super friend out of your imagination and declaring it the cause is not exactly logical or even reasonable.
  
  You have to remember people used to look at the planets (they didn’t know they were planets) moving in the night sky against the motion of the rest of the stars and the universally held belief was that gods moved those stars. Or that those planets were gods. Either way no one at the time could think of or prove a better explanation. You nos, your whole argument about the big bang is exactly that same argument.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 12th, 2011

• Also a god that exists outside time is permanently static and unchanging. Like a three dimensional picture forever frozen in place and capable of no action. Action is time dependant and without being subject to time no action is possible.
  
  Probably there is at least one other time dimension to the universe we aren’t aware of and other spatial dimensions as well that we don’t perceive. Trick is finding a way to prove it while still stuck in our four dimensional bubble. Quantum entanglement is a place to look for evidence of extra special dimensions because it proves that at a fundamental level mater can be physically connected to other matter separated by the three dimensions of space we perceive. And also time is tricky because the past present and future in a sense are also co-located, the implication there being some extra dimensional connectedness between time locations.
  
  Imaginary super friends are not the only logical or reasonable explanations for anything.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 12th, 2011

• Gillaspy, Szostak did not dare say "provable" but "plausible." There is much at stake. If you want to put all your faith in this man because he is telling you what tickles your ears, well, you are free to do that if it makes you sleep better. :) Sweet dreams.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 12th, 2011

• Nick
  
  You say it can not be proved that is what actually happened and I have to agree because no one was there to see it first hand. However that does not mean that it cant be proved that it is possible. Something possible, likely and not definite is plausible. Arguing semantics on the language is detracting from the crux of the matter.
  
  But hey, nick, you go ahead and tell yourself that if its what you need to believe to sleep at night. I can appreciate how horrible a feeling it would be to have a fundamental part of your world view shattered and that reality by default invalidating the worthiness of years worth of your lifes efforts. I think Id probably rather live in denial too instead of admitting id been wasting years of my life and maybe had caused others to do the same.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 12th, 2011

• LOL! You can't be serious. What if it is YOU that has caused others to lose faith in our Grand Creator? What if it is YOU that had discredited the Bible and drawn others away from Him? What will happen when God's Great day comes and you are shouting "there is no God, there is no God!" Will that be a happy or a horrible feeling? The truth is, we both are held accountable. Time will tell if it has been a waste to serve God.
  
  (Malachi 3:14-18) 14 “YOU have said, ‘It is of no value to serve God. And what profit is there in that we have kept the obligation to him, and that we have walked dejectedly on account of Jehovah of armies? 15 And at present we are pronouncing presumptuous people happy. Also, the doers of wickedness have been built up. Also, they have tested God out and keep getting away.’” 16 At that time those in fear of Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah and for those thinking upon his name. 17 “And they will certainly become mine,” Jehovah of armies has said, “at the day when I am producing a special property. And I will show compassion upon them, just as a man shows compassion upon his son who is serving him. 18 And YOU people will again certainly see [the distinction] between a righteous one and a wicked one, between one serving God and one who has not served him.”

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 12th, 2011

• ''What if it is YOU that has caused others to lose faith in our Grand Creator? What if it is YOU that had discredited the Bible and drawn others away from Him?''
  
  We can only hope for such success.

  • Report
  

  by Mr_Natural Abstractor of the Quintessence on July 12th, 2011

• Nick
  
  I never claimed that it is not possible for there to be a god. Do I doubt that there are or is any god gods? Absolutely. Do I believe based on the evidence that the god portrayed in the bible is not real? Absolutely.
  
  For future reference quoting the book with unicorns, talking donkeys, witches, people who live in fish for three days, mass genocide in the name of god, incest for god, and genocide caused by god does not humble me in the slightest.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 12th, 2011

• Keep going.... You didn't answer the next question. How will you feel to fall into that category? Do tell.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 12th, 2011

• Nick
  
  Am I worried that your imaginary friend wont let me into his club once I die? No.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 12th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "Good luck with that, thinking you know more than szostak."
  
  Who said I know more than Szostak? In fact, it is what he says and admits that I am pointing out to you as well as the fact he didn't cite any references to support the conditions his experiment assumed.
  
  Quote, "Good luck squeezing that ego through the pearly gates and into heaven."
  
  I ain't going to Heaven. BTW, this isn't about my ego, its about your ego. I tried to be kind to you, reason with, offered reasonable counters to your assertions, took your copy paste jobs and youtube videos as evidence even though you yourself didn't know what was going on, I corrected my own misunderstandings and continued to consider all the angles that would lend support to Szostak's experiment..... All of that and your best responses were "you're a laymen", "he is a Noble Laurette" "I'll take his word" "your religion/ideas are garbage" and many other absurdities that any fan of logic and science wouldn't be caught dead saying. And all of this because your ego wouldn't let you admit you can't rebut logically because the evidence is firmly against you. Your ego took a beating and now you wanna cry foul because I "LOLed" at your sorry and circular rants inconsistent with your own brand of logic.... Weell excuuuuuuuuusssee meeee. Grow up. I already went out of my way on the other thread to assure you I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I didn't think I was intellectually superior, I stepped in when Beatcmk was dogging you out, I wrote you a private message over a year ago explaining how I was not trying to put you on the spot on the thread with Hominan... YOU decided to become arrogant and strongly assert things which you do not know ONLY because you felt more confident and thought you had the upper hand. I see now that you were being nice only because of those reasons, but, as soon as you felt you had the upper hand your biased views took hold of you and your attacks became more personal. You sir, are a fraud and as my friend Nick said, "you're a bluff intellect".
  
  Quote, "Then again I havent dedicated my life around an idea being threatened by the evidence so its probably easy for me to say that."
  
  Um.... You are the one running away from the evidence, ignoring the parts that show you to be incorrect. The reason its easy for you to say that is because you are good at saying things but not good at offering arguments.
  
  Quote, "Exactly how objective do you think youre being in looking at this situation nos?"
  
  As best I could. I talked to friends, one of whom is a Chemistry instructor at a local college, another who is going to school to be a doctor, I looked at the links you gave me, studied up more on chemistry, tried forming an argument for your side (this is how I approach things like this) saw what Szostak claimed versus what he didn't claim, saw what you felt he claimed, what the YOUTUBE video claimed, what he left out (that would be the references) I also looked at the evidence for the environment as best understood of prebiotic earth, looked at Szostak's methods to see how much was actually chemical law versus intelligent direction.... All in all, I'd say I was very objective. In fact, I did this a long time ago on AB regarding ERV's in a debate with 773491 and after offering up my best arguments I conceded that I couldn't rebut (I found good refutations of ERV's now). I ADMIT when I don't have an argument instead of looking like child having a tantrum. Try it some time...
  
  Quote, "And if there is some “supernatural realm” like you mentioned then lets see some evidence. Possible is a long ways from plausible when it comes to gods. Im willing to grant you possible, but sans evidence its not worth much."
  
  So are we changing subjects and are you prepared?
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 12th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Quote, "Technically there was nothing that “preceded” the big bang because time didn’t exist before then."
  
  I've actually been researching this more in depth. This line of reason you offer is with the presupposition that cause and effect are only relevant where time exists. The problem with that line of reason is unless time came first the big band could not have been triggered since it was also an effect OR time always existed, but the latter is not consistent with modern cosmology. On the other hand, it is logically necessary for a cause to trigger the BB or else you'd have to argue that the BB was its own cause or was causeless. Neither is supported by science or logic.
  
  Quote, "There is no cause and effect relationship for the big bang because there was no “before” during which a cause could take place. Fabricating a super friend out of your imagination and declaring it the cause is not exactly logical or even reasonable."
  
  There was no "time" as we understand it but that does not mean that whatever triggered the BB did not precede this effect. You don't need time for a cause. Theoretically, an uncaused cause can cause other things that are not physical and hence not bound by time. You'd have to assume that ONLY things physical and affected by time can be created or triggered. This can actually get really interesting so if you want to change the subject lets do it, but, make it clear you want a subject change. You can put the onus on me.
  
  Quote, "You have to remember people used to look at the planets (they didn’t know they were planets) moving in the night sky against the motion of the rest of the stars and the universally held belief was that gods moved those stars. Or that those planets were gods. Either way no one at the time could think of or prove a better explanation. You nos, your whole argument about the big bang is exactly that same argument."
  
  Uh.. no... It was an argument in harmony with what we understand about BB cosmology. You are supposed to attack the premises if you have an issue with it. Go ahead.
  
  Quote, "Also a god that exists outside time is permanently static and unchanging."
  
  Unchanging, yes, but it does not follow that he would be static. By what sort of logic can you justify this assertion?
  
  Quote, "Like a three dimensional picture forever frozen in place and capable of no action. Action is time dependant and without being subject to time no action is possible."
  
  This line of reason is contrary to evidence: If action is time dependent, then the BB could not have been triggered, caused, started... unless time always existed OR else action is not time dependent. If we go with the first the BB can't start, if we go with the latter... then you're wrong. And by your own logic, you're still wrong with the first... its self refuting.
  
  Quote, "Probably there is at least one other time dimension to the universe we aren’t aware of and other spatial dimensions as well that we don’t perceive. Trick is finding a way to prove it while still stuck in our four dimensional bubble. Quantum entanglement is a place to look for evidence of extra special dimensions because it proves that at a fundamental level mater can be physically connected to other matter separated by the three dimensions of space we perceive. And also time is tricky because the past present and future in a sense are also co-located, the implication there being some extra dimensional connectedness between time locations."
  
  Call it what you want but you have to deal with time and the fact that at one time the physical universe did not exists.
  
  Quote, "Imaginary super friends are not the only logical or reasonable explanations for anything."
  
  The above was not an argument and I hope you really weren't trying to offer it up as one to rebut my super-friend. I'd say you need some kind of friend if you feel like having this debate. I'm game... Bring it.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 12th, 2011

• So, do you want a subject change or not? Be clear.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 12th, 2011

• Gillaspy, you attack the Bible unfairly as usual. As I have time I will address your misconceptions. For instance, does the Bible promote the idea of unicorns?
  
  In the Watchtower (1992 6/1 p. 31); Questions From Readers, had something to say you may have never known. Here it is:
  
  Does the Bible support the existence of unicorns, which are mentioned in some versions?
  
  The King James, Douay, and other versions, mention unicorns. But that is not so with modern versions that accurately render the Hebrew.—Psalm 22:21; 29:6; 92:10 (21:22; 28:6; 91:11, Douay).
  
  Over the centuries many myths have developed about an animal with the body and head of a horse but having the legs of a deer and the tail of a lion. Perhaps the most distinctive feature of this legendary creature is the single twisted horn on its forehead.
  
  “People once believed that the unicorn’s horn contained an antidote for poison, and during the Middle Ages, powders supposedly made from such horns sold for extremely high prices. Most scholars believe the image of the unicorn was derived from hearsay European accounts of the rhinoceros.” (The World Book Encyclopedia) Certain Assyrian and Babylonian monuments showed one-horned animals. These are now recognized as stags, ibex, cows, and bulls depicted from the side, a view that did not show both horns.
  
  This is of some interest to Bible students because nine times the Scriptures refer to an animal by the Hebrew term reʼem′. (Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9, 10; Psalm 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; Isaiah 34:7) Translators were long uncertain as to what animal was meant. The Greek Septuagint rendered reʼem′ with the sense ‘of one horn,’ or unicorn. The Latin Vulgate often translates it as “rhinoceros.” Other versions use ‘wild ox,’ ‘wild beasts,’ or ‘buffalo.’ Robert Young simply transliterates the Hebrew into English as “Reem,” basically leaving the reader in the dark.
  
  Modern scholars, though, have eliminated much confusion over the reʼem′. Lexicographers Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner show that it means “wild oxen,” with the scientific identification Bos primigenius. This is a “subfamily of the large horned ungulate family.” The New Encyclopædia Britannica explains:
  
  “Certain poetical passages of the Old Testament refer to a strong and splendid horned animal called reʼem′. This word is translated ‘unicorn’ or ‘rhinoceros’ in many versions, but many modern translations prefer ‘wild ox’ (aurochs), which is the correct meaning of the Hebrew reʼem′.”
  
  Since in current English “ox” has the sense of a castrated male, the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures consistently and correctly renders reʼem′ “wild bull.” The aurochs (wild ox, or bull) seems to have become extinct by the 17th century, but scientists have deduced that it was quite different from the unicorn of legend. The ancient aurochs had a body height of about six feet [1.8 m], and a length of some ten feet [3 m]. It might weigh 2,000 pounds [900 kg], and each of its two horns could be over 30 inches [75 cm] long.
  
  This certainly accords with the Biblical mention of the reʼem′, or wild bull. It was noted for its strength and intractable disposition (Job 39:10, 11) as well as its swiftness. (Numbers 23:22; 24:8) Evidently it had two horns, not one horn like the legendary unicorn. Moses referred to its horns when illustrating the two powerful tribes that would spring from Joseph’s two sons.—Deuteronomy 33:17.
  
  So the Bible does not support the idea of unicorns as renowned in legend. It does draw an accurate, though limited, picture of the massive and fear-inspiring aurochs, or wild bull, that existed in Biblical times and down into the not-too-distant past.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 13th, 2011

• So szostak presupposes plausible environments when developing his experiments and models, is that really enough to justify throwing out his work entirely? After all those conditions he presupposes are not unreasonable and he mentions as much in the introduction. Remember that he is not researching the conditions of the prebiotic earth because that has been done exhaustively already and none of the conditions he presupposes are outside the realm of plausibility. I don’t know about you but ive written papers like those, admittedly not as sophisticated, but college level engineering related. I mention that fact because I know from personal experience that you have to take things as assumed in order to even have an experiment and while you obviously have to make reasonable assumptions you don’t have to prove all the trivial redundant basic background material in the context of your specific paper. Believe me though when I tell you that the professors will not let unreasonable assumptions slide any more than the peer reviewers would let szostak. I sincerely help this helps you see more clearly because your arrogant dismissal of the evidence on the grounds that the presuppositions are not valid is tiresome and not legitimately founded.
  
  “OR time always existed”
  
  You seem to be leaning in this direction but let me assure you that in fact the dimension of time we experience and the three dimensions of space we perceive are inextricably twined and inseparable. You can look into it yourself by doing a study of specific relativity theory or for a more comprehensive view that factors in the effects of mass/gravity generalized relativity theory is the place to go. But to put it really simply the faster object A moves through the three spatial dimensions relative to object B the slower object A’s passage through time will be relative to the passage of time for object B. And acceleration either due to being influenced by a gravitational field or traditional acceleration has the same effect of slowing passage through time.
  
  “Theoretically, an uncaused cause can cause other things that are not physical and hence not bound by time.”
  
  That sounds like youre just inventing something capable of breaking the rules for the convenience of having a simple explanation.
  
  “On the other hand, it is logically necessary for a cause to trigger the BB or else you'd have to argue that the BB was its own cause or was causeless.”
  
  The “cause” of the BB may be mysterious and difficult to grapple with due to us being bound by the four dimensions we perceive but that does not entitle us to fabricate super beings to explain away the mystery. Now to be serious it is reasonable to look to the implications of extra dimensional effects. Here is a thought experiment to help you understand how extra dimensional effects can explain the big bang. Suppose that instead of living in a universe of three perceived spatial dimensions that instead we lived in one of two spatial dimensions. That those two dimensions took the form of the surface of a sphere and all of our perceptions were limited to the two dimensions of the surface of the sphere. We in the two dimensional surface of the sphere universe would not realize directions perpendicular to the surface were possible. Now imagine that this sphere is initially small but expands due to negative pressure acting on it in the third dimension. That expansion would be perceived as a big bang like phenomenon to the inhabitants of the two dimensional sphere surface because the causes of the expansion are not visible in the perceived two dimensions, that is to say the expansion of the sphere is due to forces acting perpendicular to the sphere in a direction that is not perceivable to the two dimensional inhabitants.
  
  This thought experiment can be extrapolated to our three spatial dimensional expanding universe and forces acting perpendicular to our three dimensional space may be driving

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 13th, 2011

• This thought experiment can be extrapolated to our three spatial dimensional expanding universe and forces acting perpendicular to our three dimensional space may be driving or have caused the expansion but we can not perceive them because our perceptions are bound to the three spatial dimensions we see.
  
  Evidence? Proposed dark matter has been posited to exist to explain the rate of observed expansion. That may be a faulty proposition because the missing force could be acting on our three dimensions from a direction perpendicular to our three dimensional space in such a way as to be unobservable directly.
  
  More on time later and also entanglement.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 13th, 2011

• gilaspy for this comment I'm only going to respond the paragraph regarding Szostak. The time issue is a totally separate issue. As I said, if you want a subject change I'm all for it but you need to say so. I did read what you wrote in response to my points on time and see you missed what I was saying by a long shot. Lets discuss one subject at a time.
  
  Quote, "So szostak presupposes plausible environments when developing his experiments and models, is that really enough to justify throwing out his work entirely?"
  
  No one is throwing it out. What is being tossed out is its plausibility since the evidence suggest the conditions are not as he needs. I can't find the actual paper that is most cited(Hall 1997) because its not free. But from what all the recent papers show is that Hall 1997 has not shown to be incorrect. Anything to do with prebiotic cites Hall 1997 and you can only get small quotes stating the ocean is acidic. This is what peer review states. I did find out why, its supposed to be because more CO2 in the atmosphere. So for Szostak's experiment to take the first step towards plausibility in a real context, not just an assertion, he or his team would necessarily have to address CO2 in the atmosphere and ocean ph. Last I checked his is not a geologist and therefore would need some hard evidence to support his assumed conditions... Notice he didn't...
  
  Quote, "After all those conditions he presupposes are not unreasonable and he mentions as much in the introduction."
  
  Look up the word "assertion" because this is what he did when he didn't cite any references and this is what you continue to do when you don't cite any references or offer up any argument of your own.
  
  Quote, "Remember that he is not researching the conditions of the prebiotic earth because that has been done exhaustively already and none of the conditions he presupposes are outside the realm of plausibility."
  
  Well then cite a source. How do you know this? How is it that I am to remember something you nor Szostak cite? Produce this already, and when you do so give me a day to read it and we can go from there. You can also make your own argument. But do something other than assert.
  
  Quote, "I don’t know about you but ive written papers like those, admittedly not as sophisticated, but college level engineering related. I mention that fact because I know from personal experience that you have to take things as assumed in order to even have an experiment and while you obviously have to make reasonable assumptions you don’t have to prove all the trivial redundant basic background material in the context of your specific paper."
  
  Indeed. However, what you assume and what you prove or show to be plausible are two entirely different things. Reasonable assumptions would be if he cited a reasonable source... He cites none... You cite none...
  
  Quote, "Believe me though when I tell you that the professors will not let unreasonable assumptions slide any more than the peer reviewers would let szostak."
  
  His paper was not submitted to a geology journal. The reviewers can clearly see he is "assuming" conditions for his experiment, just as I can, just as he admits. Why are you not grasping that factoid? Dude, its in his paper, he states they are assumed and cites no source. You will see any peer reviewed article give at least a reference to support the assertion. He doesn't have to prove it, he doesn't have to become a geologist, he doesn't have do anything special that any other researcher doesn't already do, no one is asking for things out of this world, a simple reference that reasonably supports his assertions.
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 13th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  Quote, "I sincerely help this helps you see more clearly because your arrogant dismissal of the evidence on the grounds that the presuppositions are not valid is tiresome and not legitimately founded."
  
  You hope a circular and emotional rant can help me? Try forming an argument when you get a chance. How can you help me when you do the very thing you accuse religious folks of doing? You take things up on faith. I am not tossing out information in a way that is unreasonable. If this were any other topic not related in some way to God and creation this would be clearer to you. You are defending this (and not very well) based on "feelings" not on evidence. Who is the one tossing out the article on prebiotic conditions? Hmmm....?
  
  As far as me "arrogantly dismissing" evidence, I'm not. Its called logic. Secondly, YOU would have to present it first (the evidence in support of the assertions) in order for me to dismiss it. I am still waiting for your "PEER REVIEWED" article in support of Szostak's assumed conditions of prebiotic earth.
  
  Until then, you are dismissing evidence submitted to you that countered your evidence (morel like your assertions). How do you think discussions like this work? First one to submit a peer reviewed article wins?... I certainly hope not.
  
  So, address the article I cited or concede.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 13th, 2011

• I'll be back later or tomorrow. Pleas pick one topic and lets finish that one.
  
  Address the article I cited OR concede OR change the subject (this is the easy way out I suggest you take it).

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 13th, 2011

• NOS
  
  So the best you’ve got is the abstract a ten year old paper talking about how the ocean was acidic? Im sorry but that just isn’t going to cut it. First you need to understand that szostaks publications wouldn’t have made it to print if he made flawed conditional assumptions because they wouldn’t have passed peer review. Second even in the paper it talks about environments other than oceans.
  
  In essence you are saying that you know szostaks work is flawed based on the abstract of a ten year old paper that doesn’t even contradict szostaks work. Even I can tell youre reaching.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 13th, 2011

• Gillaspy, you are playing dodge ball. Why don't you just produce what NOS has requested on several occasions or is it beyond your reach? I do believe NOS has taken you to task and you know it.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 13th, 2011

• NOS has arrogantly declared that he knows more than szostak and the experts who review his work and he expects me to personally re-prove szostaks work. Im not going to pander to NOS’s arrogance by even playing into the idea that he is being reasonable. What, am I supposed to believe that NOS has singlehandedly proved that szostak and the experts who put their careers and reputations on the line to publish were wrong based on an afternoon of google searches and the abstract of a ten plus year old paper that does not even contradict the publication in question? No, I will not pander to NOS’s delusions of grandeur.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 13th, 2011

• http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_Ann_Rev_BP_2010.pdf
  
  Not to mention the fact that if you read the paper it talks about the environments where the prebiotic building blocks were probably created and lo and behold they don’t even suggest oceans. So the premise that those building blocks couldn’t be created in an ocean as NOS’s paper suggests is not contrary to the current working models put forth by szostak. And to be fair I have been giving szostak too much credit. There are literally dozens of equally talented researchers whom szostak cites constantly.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 13th, 2011

• Szostak hasn't even proved his work and ideas are fact. He feels it is plausible, believable to him, but not PROVABLE. Just a theory of his and NOS points out why he or no other person for that matter can have full confidence in such a hypothesis. It is you who is delusional if you think Szostak is saying more than he is. It is not as slam dunk as you are wishing.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 13th, 2011

• nick
  
  Something that is plausible must by virtue of the definition be possible. But more than that something plausible is also likely. Don’t get hung up on the language because the only reason they don’t say, “this is exactly how life started” is that no one was there to personally see it happen.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 13th, 2011

• Quote, "So the best you’ve got is the abstract a ten year old paper talking about how the ocean was acidic? Im sorry but that just isn’t going to cut it."
  
  It has not been refuted and pretty much all papers dealing with prebiotic conditions cite Hall as a reference. In other words its still valid. You are looking at as if being from 1997, in of itself, says something. Szostak cites references from the late 1800s if I remember correctly. It doesn't matter, only thing that matters is if its relevant.
  
  Quote, "First you need to understand that szostaks publications wouldn’t have made it to print if he made flawed conditional assumptions because they wouldn’t have passed peer review. Second even in the paper it talks about environments other than oceans."
  
  If it was submitted to a geological type peer review it would have has serious hurdles. As far as other places other than an ocean, please cite it.
  
  Quote, "In essence you are saying that you know szostaks work is flawed based on the abstract of a ten year old paper that doesn’t even contradict szostaks work. Even I can tell youre reaching."
  
  I mentioned more than that, including activated nucleotides he made for this experiment. The one who is reaching is you, notice how you don't have any counters other than assertions. You really don't have anything. See for yourself, go back through the comments.
  
  Quote, "NOS has arrogantly declared that he knows more than szostak and the experts who review his work and he expects me to personally re-prove szostaks work."
  
  Talk about reaching, now you're flat out lying. When did I state I know more than Szostak? I pointed to what he admitted. He knows what he did, all I did was point to it.
  
  Quote, "Im not going to pander to NOS’s arrogance by even playing into the idea that he is being reasonable. What, am I supposed to believe that NOS has singlehandedly proved that szostak and the experts who put their careers and reputations on the line to publish were wrong based on an afternoon of google searches and the abstract of a ten plus year old paper that does not even contradict the publication in question? No, I will not pander to NOS’s delusions of grandeur."
  
  So providing a source that addresses what I've brought up is pandering? So you actually have this info you are just withholding it so my head doesn't get bigger with my self delusion... Yeeeaaahh.... OoooooHHHhhhKKKaaaaaaayyy... we believe you.
  
  Quote, "Not to mention the fact that if you read the paper it talks about the environments where the prebiotic building blocks were probably created and lo and behold they don’t even suggest oceans."
  
  Oh please tell us where else?
  
  From Duke university, sub heading "Thermal vents"
  
  "On the molecular level, the chances of life originating at deep sea thermal vents is not likely. It is known that organic molecules are unstable at high temperatures, and are destroyed as quickly as they are produced. It has been estimated that life could not have arisen in the ocean unless the temperature was less than 25oC, or 77oF."
  http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiology/sites.html
  
  So, it wasn't in the ocean but do you see the other problem? High temperatures in thermal vents regardless of whether they are in the ocean or not. Lets put a few things together here with a few questions: If this did not happen in the ocean, where could it have happened where these vesicles could have formed, where the ph was not acidic, the temperatures could have a variation enough to allow for this to take place?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 13th, 2011

• Quote, "Something that is plausible must by virtue of the definition be possible. But more than that something plausible is also likely."
  
  Which is why this would be so easy and a reference would clear this up at least enough for us to get to the activated nucleotides.
  
  Quote, "Don’t get hung up on the language because the only reason they don’t say, “this is exactly how life started” is that no one was there to personally see it happen."
  
  And you know this because............?
  
  Any day now....

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 13th, 2011

• Oh wait I know what he is going to say, "you're a laymen", "he is a Noble Laurette", "the word plausible is used therefore it is plausible", "you don't know more than Szostak".
  
  Any more pearls of wisdom?
  
  I can't wait til tomorrow....

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 13th, 2011

• http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_Ann_Rev_BP_2010.pdf
  
  Where do the building blocks come from? Page 246
  
  How do the building blocks come together? Page 249
  
  Cellular replication? page 253
  
  Sometimes I wonder if we are even reading the same papers.
  
  If you dont find what youre looking for there then see the rest because no one of these is intended to be a catch all explanation to a layman of the entire scope of the processes involved.
  
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 14th, 2011

• You know whats hilarious? The very next paragraph from that duke web site NOS linked.
  
  “the organic molecules at the thermal vents are not formed in 300oC temperatures, but rather in a gradient formed between the hydrothermal vent water, and the extremely cold water, 4oC (39.2oF), which surrounds the vent at the bottom of the ocean. The temperatures at this gradient would be suitable for organic chemistry to occur.”
  
  This effectively negates anything you claimed to benefit from this link. In fact szostak references the following paper regarding this phenomenon because it is a plausible mechanism.
  
  http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9855/1/BAApnas07.pdf
  
  from the abstract
  
  “We find that interlinked mineral pores in a thermal gradient provide a compelling high-concentration starting point for the molecular evolution of life.”
  
  From http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_Ann_Rev_BP_2010.pdf
  
  “Hydrothermal systems have long been
  proposed as sites for prebiotic chemistry,
  suggesting that concentrating channels in
  vent precipitates could have coupled prebiotic
  synthesis with self-assembly. We demonstrated
  that thermophoresis could facilitate
  the concentration-dependent process of fatty
  acid vesicle self-assembly, a model system for
  the formation of early cell-like structures (see
  below) (9). Model microchannels were able
  to concentrate dilute solutions of fatty acids,
  leading to the formation of fatty acid vesicles.
  In a second experiment, nucleic acid oligomers
  were also included in the initial solution and
  co-concentrated with the fatty acids, leading to
  the self-assembly of vesicles encapsulating the
  oligomers. These experiments demonstrate
  that simple and surprising physical phenomena
  could have provided the necessary energy for
  the assembly of cell-like structures through the
  concentration of dilute solutions of building
  blocks (Figure 3c). The localized nature of the
  process allows it to guide the self-assembly of
  these structures through the co-concentration
  of multiple biological components, e.g., lipids
  and genetic polymers.”

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 14th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "Where do the building blocks come from? Page 246
  
  How do the building blocks come together? Page 249
  
  Cellular replication? page 253
  
  Sometimes I wonder if we are even reading the same papers."
  
  Excuse me, but, how is it that answering questions that I didn't ask, is somehow in your mind, answering questions I actually asked? Do you remember what I asked? It was based on your claim that this did not take place in the ocean.
  
  Quote, "If you dont find what youre looking for there then see the rest because no one of these is intended to be a catch all explanation to a layman of the entire scope of the processes involved.
  
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html"
  
  I will when I have more time, thanks. One thing though, you really don't know, do you? I mean, thats OK obviously. I just find it odd how you assert all these things "it happen here" "it happened there" but don't know what you are asserting. You are just tossing me links.
  
  Quote, "You know whats hilarious? The very next paragraph from that duke web site NOS linked.
  
  “the organic molecules at the thermal vents are not formed in 300oC temperatures, but rather in a gradient formed between the hydrothermal vent water, and the extremely cold water, 4oC (39.2oF), which surrounds the vent at the bottom of the ocean. The temperatures at this gradient would be suitable for organic chemistry to occur.”
  
  What's hilarious is you can't remember your own claim. Do you even remember the context and questions and therefore reason why I posted that link? And do you really think I didn't read that much? I thought to myself last night that you'd understand YOUR OWN claim that this did NOT happen in the ocean. The link posted was only to show how high temperatures would hurt this idea of yours. Here is why I posted that link...
  
  YOU SAID: Not to mention the fact that if you read the paper it talks about the environments where the prebiotic building blocks were probably created and lo and behold they don’t even suggest oceans. So the premise that those building blocks couldn’t be created in an ocean as NOS’s paper suggests is not contrary to the current working models put forth by szostak."
  
  OK NOT the ocean... So I respond with the Duke university link AND this paragraph, read it.
  
  I SAID: "So, it wasn't in the ocean but do you see the other problem? High temperatures in thermal vents regardless of whether they are in the ocean or not. Lets put a few things together here with a few questions: If this did not happen in the ocean, where could it have happened where these vesicles could have formed, where the ph was not acidic, the temperatures could have a variation enough to allow for this to take place?
  
  Here is the crucial part again: "If this did not happen in the ocean, where could it have happened where these vesicles could have formed, where the ph was not acidic, the temperatures could have a variation enough to allow for this to take place?"
  
  YOU claimed it was NOT in the ocean. So I said, "If this did not happen in the ocean, where could it have happened where these vesicles could have formed, where the ph was not acidic, the temperatures could have a variation enough to allow for this to take place?"
  
  What part of your own claim did you not understand? Also, and just so you know, the current understanding of the ocean temperature is not as low as needed.
  
  "The temperature after the formation of the first oceans can be assumed to have stayed at an elevated
  level (~70–100 °C) for a long time, although the activity of the sun was markedly lower 4 Gyr ago. The high concentrations of CO2 and water vapor in the atmosphere provided a strong greenhouse
  effect [18], maybe also with the intermediate help of some methane or ammonia [5,6]."
  http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/pdf/2007/pdf/7912x2101.pdf
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 14th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  And more support for the ocean's temperature not as you thought nor need for this to work.
  
  "Metal ions were abundant in the primordial soup. It is believed that 3.8 × 109 years ago, the ocean was between 80°C and 100°C with a pH possibly as low as 6 (Bengston 1994)."
  http://cshmonographs.org/index.php/monographs/article/view/5115
  
  Thats 80C to 100C, 176F to 212F respectively. Very hot. Cooler temps as suggested are not likely. BTW I did find a little hope for the ph in certain pockets to slightly more alkaline but it wouldn't be for to long in the ocean.
  
  So again, "If this did not happen in the ocean, where could it have happened where these vesicles could have formed, where the ph was not acidic, the temperatures could have a variation enough to allow for this to take place?"
  
  Please cite a peer reviewed paper so we can look at it.
  
  Quote, "This effectively negates anything you claimed to benefit from this link. In fact szostak references the following paper regarding this phenomenon because it is a plausible mechanism.
  
  http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9855/1/BAApnas07.pdf"
  
  If you read the sub heading, "Hydrothermal Setting" the setting is in the ocean, contrary to your claim. Don't see why you use this link as support of it happening anywhere other than the ocean...
  
  Do you have any links that support this did not happen in the ocean, along with the things needed if this did not happen in the ocean?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 14th, 2011

• And BTW if you are going to flip flop and say it was in the ocean that's fine. The questions and problems remain the same. Ph, temperature, etc...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 14th, 2011

• http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_Ann_Rev_BP_2010.pdf
  
  “However, marine environments feature high salt concentrations, which generally inhibit thermal diffusion. Seawater also contains high concentrations of divalent salts, which prevent membrane assembly from fatty acids. These constraints suggest that analogous freshwater hydrothermal systems would have provided a more suitable environment”
  
  
  http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9855/1/BAApnas07.pdf
  
  “In conclusion, we propose a type of mechanism, driven solely by a temperature gradient, which strongly accumulates even small protobiological molecules in semiclosed hydrothermal pore systems. This setting provides a compelling, dissipative microenvironment to promote the first steps in the molecular evolution of life.”
  
  
  Ok nos, I have bought into your game and provided you with the evidence about plausible environments. Ironically if you had even read the paper I gave you the first time then I would not have had to quote from it again to provide the evidence. This time actually read these two papers before blathering on at me about how you need me to explain this aspect of it or that for you.
  
  http://www.glwi.uwm.edu/research/biogeochemistry/hydrothermal/
  
  hydrothermal does not only signify ocean, as you can see here Yellowstone has an example of freshwater hydrothermals.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 14th, 2011

• I think you know by now that ph and temperature is crucial. I also am assuming you understand why temperature variations are necessary. Part of the solution was to posit geysers like you just mention but that wouldn't do much since even if the water were cooled enough to the proper temperature that is as far as it would go until the vesicles would dissolve, if they even formed. To remedy this the paper you cite states the following...
  
  "A different concentration mechanism proposed
  by Braun and colleagues (1) involves the
  natural formation of thermal diffusion columns
  in a hydrothermal setting. Explorations of offaxis,
  alkaline vents have revealed unusually
  porous rock structures containing a network of
  narrow channels (38)"
  
  So we got the ph and temperatures solved, right? Not so fast. Lets keep reading.
  
  "Because of
  their proximity to both hot vent water and cold
  ocean water, significant temperature gradients
  can develop across such channels.Alateral thermal
  gradient across a vertical channel results in
  the coupling of two physical processes: (a) a vertical
  convective flow as cold fluid sinks and hot
  fluid rises, and (b) the thermal diffusion (or thermophoresis)
  of molecules along the temperature
  gradient"
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_Ann_Rev_BP_2010.pdf
  
  Problem.... The very water that these vesicles are cooled by and thus supposed to benefit from, the acidic (ph) ocean water, this very water would not be beneficial to the vesicles. This would disrupt the ph needed for this experiment... The acidic ocean remains an issue.
  
  More problems... As you may remember from the first and second Szostak papers you cited, there were a few key components to his method. They were fatty acids, glycerol, and phosphates. Another problem...
  
  "In fact, several early papers demonstrated that phospholipids could be synthesized under simulated prebiotic conditions from mixtures of fatty acids, glycerol, and phosphate (Hargreaves et al., 1977; Oro et al., 1978). However, the simultaneous presence of all three components on the early Earth is highly speculative, and we have therefore turned our attention to simpler membranogenic amphiphiles."
  http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.10154/full
  
  So its unlikely that in a prebiotic environment all three of these components would be present together.
  
  You cited the part in the paper where it states that freshwater thermal vents are a more plausible environment, but, it still requires ocean water to cool the water. I quoted it on above, page 252, last paragraph.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 14th, 2011

• So they solve one problem, the temperature, but, in doing so create others they were trying to avoid-the acidic ocean water comes back to haunt the little vesicles.
  
  And this is assuming the vesicles even formed...
  
  
  And we still haven't gotten to the "activated nucleotides" Szostak created for this experiment... But one thing at a time.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 14th, 2011

• Oh and just a reminder... We need to see evidence of chemical law at work here. Not stuff that only works in labs.
  
  As you can see what Szostak has done is show how implausible all of this is without an intelligence. The hurdles are to great to assume chemical law alone started life even in the lab.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 14th, 2011

• http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9855/1/BAApnas07.pdf
  
  This process outlined here is not dependant on salt water. Yes, in fact fresh water can cool just as well as salt water. Also since there is nothing in the processes outlined that depends on salt water the argument that the ph of the ocean would have been a problem is nullified.
  
  
  “So its unlikely that in a prebiotic environment all three of these components would be present together.”
  “article first published online: 9 OCT 2002”
  
  Respectfully this is dated and doesn’t take into consideration the newer work by szostak and others to show that in fact what seemed implausible is indeed plausible. The point of this work by szostak is to prove there is a plausible pathway from inorganics on a prebiotic earth to biology. Sometimes this sort of thing is refered to as a “breakthrough”. As a general rule of thumb if youre going to try and disprove something you need to find a paper that is newer than the one youre trying to disprove otherwise it wont reflect the latest breakthroughs and research.
  
  “We need to see evidence of chemical law at work here. Not stuff that only works in labs.”
  
  None of this stuff “only works in the lab”. Youre hilarious, if they demonstrate in the lab that by replicating naturally occurring conditions life can occur then you say its no good because its in a lab. But if they don’t replicate it in a lab then you say “its unproven speculation”. And for the record all of this is based on “chemical law”, the exact chemical reactions and pathways are detailed and if youd take the time to read the papers I keep putting in front of you then you wouldn’t make such a silly statement.
  
  “And we still haven't gotten to the "activated nucleotides" Szostak created for this experiment”
  
  In order to test some of the implications of this particular model of spontaneous life emergence, like competition and replication of simple proto cells it was necessary to have control conditions to get accurate understandings. So in order to facilitate that process the decision was made to engineer self replicating polymers (activated nucleotides) instead of picking them out from the pot that proved they can emerge spontaneously. They had shown that these little self replicating molecules can occur spontaneously but wanted to specifically study their rates of replication and other properties but to do this they needed to know exactly what molecules they were dealing with because they aren’t all exactly the same so they replicated some to use for their experiment. The fact that you have an issue with this is rediculous.
  
  “As you can see what Szostak has done is show how implausible all of this is without an intelligence. The hurdles are to great to assume chemical law alone started life even in the lab.”
  
  The only intelligence required is the intelligence to recognize the natural circumstances and processes that led to life. And in your case the intelligence to read and comprehend the material. Yes, the correct environmental conditions coupled with natural chemical reactions are all that is necessary. Just because you don’t understand doesn’t make it not so.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 14th, 2011

• I'll respond later today if I get a chance but the paper you cite for the freshwater scenario in a thermal vent only solved on problem (accumulation) and created another.... the temperature. Notice how the Zzostak paper doesn't use that method. You'll see what I mean later. Just remember 30K... This is exactly why things work only in steps in a lab but cannot be plausible outside of the lab.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 15th, 2011

• “Notice how the Zzostak paper doesn't use that method.”
  
  You never even read the paper.
  
  I know this because, again, I am about to contradict you by quoting that same paper again. The footnote (1) is referencing the same paper I linked before,
  
  http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9855/1/BAApnas07.pdf
  
  What paper? This paper.
  
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_Ann_Rev_BP_2010.pdf
  
  page 252. Look at the big color pictures and read. Here, ill quote some too…
  
  A different concentration mechanism proposed by Braun and colleagues (1) involves the natural formation of thermal diffusion columns in a hydrothermal setting. Explorations of offaxis, alkaline vents have revealed unusually porous rock structures containing a network of narrow channels (38) (Figure 3a). Because of their proximity to both hot vent water and cold ocean water, significant temperature gradients can develop across such channels.Alateral thermal gradient across a vertical channel results in the coupling of two physical processes: (a) a vertical convective flow as cold fluid sinks and hot fluid rises, and (b) the thermal diffusion (or thermophoresis) of molecules along the temperature gradient (Figure 3b). This coupling can lead to large accumulations of solutes in both gases and liquids and was used as an industrial process (known as Clusius-Dickel separations or thermal diffusion columns) in the middle of the twentieth century (31). Braun and colleagues performed numerical simulations that predicted extreme accumulations (>1010 fold enrichment) of nucleotides and oligomers on the basis of experimental measurements of thermal diffusivities.We have recently validated this concentration mechanism experimentally by observing the accumulation of small molecules (>1000-fold enrichment) in response to the imposition of a transverse temperature gradient across glass microchannels (9). The concentration of solutes in response to a temperature gradient is intriguing for a number of reasons. The accumulation is specific in that, for a given temperature gradient, the concentration effect depends on the coupling between the channel diameter and the solute thermal diffusivity.
  Unlike evaporation and freezing, which concentrate all solutes and thus invariably generate brine-like solutions, a given thermal diffusion column concentrates only a relatively narrow range of molecules on the basis of their molecular and thermal diffusivities. It is also a steady-state system: The constant input of thermal energy via heating of the channel wall keeps the local concentration continuously high. Hydrothermal systems have long been proposed as sites for prebiotic chemistry, suggesting that concentrating channels in vent precipitates could have coupled prebioticsynthesis with self-assembly. We demonstratedthat thermophoresis could facilitate the concentration-dependent process of fatty acid vesicle self-assembly, a model system for the formation of early cell-like structures (see below) (9). Model microchannels were able to concentrate dilute solutions of fatty acids, leading to the formation of fatty acid vesicles. In a second experiment, nucleic acid oligomers were also included in the initial solution and co-concentrated with the fatty acids, leading to the self-assembly of vesicles encapsulating the oligomers. These experiments demonstrate that simple and surprising physical phenomena could have provided the necessary energy for the assembly of cell-like structures through the concentration of dilute solutions of building blocks (Figure 3c). The localized nature of the process allows it to guide the self-assembly of these structures through the co-concentration of multiple biological components, e.g., lipids and genetic polymers. However, marine environments feature high salt concentrations, which generally inhibit thermal diffusion. Seawater also contains high concentrations of divalent salts, which prevent membrane assembly from

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 15th, 2011

• Seawater also contains high concentrations of divalent salts, which prevent membrane assembly from fatty acids. These constraints suggest that analogous freshwater hydrothermal systems would have provided a more suitable environment for this concentrating mechanism.
  
  In summation: Yes, this is the mechanism that szostak used in his models and experiments. Yes it is a naturally occurring environment. No, the temperature gradient is not an inhibitor to the process. All youre doing here NOS is show that you don’t grasp the material and intentionally refuse to even try by reading.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 15th, 2011

• I just saw something I missed the first time. Szostak used DMSO-d6. I'll get to that later, gotta make sure its the same thing I use for sprains... This is even worse than I thought. This experiment is very questionable...
  
  
  But for now I'll just continue with 30K or... tomorrow. Sorry I'm a bit tired. But I told you I'd get to it. You went ahead and tried to anticipate what I was going to say. Well... ya missed it again. Since you like guessing so much try this.
  
  
  Why is it relevant that the hydrothermal vents be near the ocean as opposed to anywhere else?
  
  
  Think real carefully before you answer that.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 15th, 2011

• Nothing about the process in this paper requires salt water.
  http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9855/1/BAApnas07.pdf
  Whatever delusional reason youre going on about needing salt in the water for cooling exists only in your head.
  
  And youre qualified to determine of an experiment preformed by experts and reviewed by experts is questionable? Laughable.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 15th, 2011

• This shows exactly what I'm talking about. When one problem is solved another is created. The paper you keep citing is not dealing with ph or temperature.
  
  "Thus, to obtain the temperature difference of 30 K
  assumed in the above simulations, the required overall temperature
  gradient is of the order of 1–40 K/mm, well within reported
  values of T for natural hydrothermal settings. However, focusing
  of the temperature gradient in the pores is not essential for
  the accumulation process. For lower thermal gradients, the same
  accumulation can be achieved if the pore system is elongated
  linearly for a decreased temperature difference."
  
  This paper is only concerned with accumulation of molecules in a thermal vent. You cannot just transport this over to Szostak's experiment. His paper is very concerned with temperature and ph. The only bone this paper tosses for cooler temps is "elongated linearly for a decreased temperature difference". But, if can't be to far off or else the concentrations will not be the same, they will be diluted. Also the question then is, "how cool can this get?"
  
  On this link...
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Powner_et_al_2010_JACS.pdf
  
  look at his methods he uses.
  
  The fact that this paper http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9855/1/BAApnas07.pdf doesn't deal with ocean water is quite irrelevant.
  
  Look at the cooling temperatures Szostak proposes, room temperature and one is at 39.2F or 4C. He needs a cooling method that was not found on prebiotic earth and much less in a hydrothermal vent especially if there are no cooler waters. Also the ph must be neutral or near neutral.
  
  Just go to the methods section on his paper, the latest one of 2010.
  
  
  OK bed time now...
  
  Oh, tell me, what cooling method provides what Szostak needs? Is it ocean water or something else?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 15th, 2011

• You didnt even reference the right paper because you don’t understand whats going on. Here ill help you…
  
  In this paper…
  
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_Ann_Rev_BP_2010.pdf
  
  Szostak talks about doing experiments replicating hydrothermal environments. He says,
  
  “We have recently validated this concentration mechanism experimentally by observing the accumulation of small molecules (>1000-fold enrichment) in response to the imposition of a transverse temperature gradient across glass microchannels (9).“
  
  And
  
  “We demonstratedthat thermophoresis could facilitate the concentration-dependent process of fatty acid vesicle self-assembly, a model system for the formation of early cell-like structures (see below) (9). Model microchannels were able to concentrate dilute solutions of fatty acids, leading to the formation of fatty acid vesicles. In a second experiment, nucleic acid oligomers were also included in the initial solution and co-concentrated with the fatty acids, leading to the self-assembly of vesicles encapsulating the oligomers.”
  
  Then he summarizes the results
  
  “These experiments demonstrate that simple and surprising physical phenomena could have provided the necessary energy for the assembly of cell-like structures through the concentration of dilute solutions of building blocks (Figure 3c). The localized nature of the process allows it to guide the self-assembly of these structures through the co-concentration of multiple biological components, e.g., lipids and genetic polymers.”
  
  Now you may be asking yourself, “where can I get a look at these experiments?”
  
  The number 9 in the above quotes is a footnote that tells you where to go to see the material being discussed. When you look at the reference section you see that (9) refers to
  
  Budin I, Bruckner RJ, Szostak JW. 2009. Formation of protocell-like vesicles in a thermal diffusion column. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 131:9628–29
  
  here is the link to that peer reviewed paper.
  
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_et_al_JACS_2009.pdf
  
  So if you want to take a look at what you claim to be criticizing then knock yourself out. At least I helped you to actually find the paper it was you said you were disproving…
  
  Looking forward to your insightful comments.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 16th, 2011

• This paper: http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_Ann_Rev_BP_2010.pdf
  
  Szostak talks about results from seawater hydrothermal vents but points out the problem (salt) and proceeds to assume the same results minus the problem with seawater.
  
  "However, marine environments
  feature high salt concentrations,
  which generally inhibit thermal diffusion. Seawater
  also contains high concentrations of divalent
  salts, which prevent membrane assembly
  from fatty acids. These constraints suggest that
  analogous freshwater hydrothermal systems
  would have provided a more suitable environment
  for this concentrating mechanism."
  
  This was under the subheading "The Concentration Problem". What I've been saying IS that one problem is solved and another created.
  
  Where is the problem?
  
  He is switching from the ideal cooling scenario that ocean hydrothermal vents provide and just assumes the same under freshwater conditions. Cooling is still needed.
  
  I referenced this: http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Powner_et_al_2010_JACS.pdf....... To show how much PH and temperatures are needed for the whole experiment.
  
  See the problem? Solving one issue creates another.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 16th, 2011

• This http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Powner_et_al_2010_JACS.pdf..... deals with...
  
  "Abstract: The recent development of a sequential, high-yielding route to activated pyrimidine nucleotides,
  under conditions thought to be prebiotic, is an encouraging step toward the greater goal of a plausible
  prebiotic pathway to RNA and the potential for an RNA world. However, this synthesis has led to a disparity
  in the methodology available for stepwise construction of the canonical pyrimidine and purine nucleotides."
  
  Where Szostak deals with temperature and ph greatly.
  
  So the question is, how does the cooling happen without ocean water?
  
  And.... Does the new cooling method affect the ph and concentration? Clearly this is a concern. Notice to what lengths they are pointing this out. Again, look at the "methods" he uses toward the bottom of the link.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 16th, 2011

• “He is switching from the ideal cooling scenario that ocean hydrothermal vents provide and just assumes the same under freshwater conditions. Cooling is still needed.”
  
  For the third time… Fresh water has the exact same cooling properties as salt water… This process is not salt water dependant.
  
  http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9855/1/BAApnas07.pdf
  
  pH and temperature are addressed in this paper about the vent scenario
  
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_et_al_JACS_2009.pdf
  
  
  If you have lingering doubts about the ability of the building blocks to survive and be formed under those conditions see the above two papers because they specifically say that the molecules form and are stable under those conditions.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 16th, 2011

• Actually I believe I may have misspoken. The construction of the building blocks themselves need not occur in the hydrothermal environment. The hydrothermal environment is the site of building block assembly into proto cells and self replicating molecules. From memory the building blocks themselves form under their own conditions and accumulate in water only to be concentrated in the hydrothermal environment.
  
  I will dig out the specific quotes and links on this later today.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 16th, 2011

• Take your time, I might not be on til Monday...
  
  Quote, "For the third time… Fresh water has the exact same cooling properties as salt water… This process is not salt water dependant."
  
  OK, we don't need to assert a third time. What is needed is your evidence that they are analogous. No more assertions, please, that doesn't do anything. The reason I bring this up is because water is not as available as in the ocean water scenario. I suppose a large lake would slightly address the issue, but, not without its own set of problems.
  
  Do you see what I'm saying? The issue is not "can this work in a lab?" its "can it work under plausible prebiotic conditions via chemical laws?" If the answer is "yes" to the latter question, then, we should have plausible evidence (I'm not asking for the impossible here) of 1)plausible prebiotic earth conditions, 2)chemical law must assemble whatever is in question in a plausible way and, 3)in a plausible enough time period (only a few hundred million years).
  
  The third of these requirements I'm willing to overlook for the moment, only so we can progress with the actual details of the experiments. But, its something you should consider for yourself. This point alone is highly damaging.
  
  Another thing you should consider is that fact that Szostak doesn't make to many claims about what this can accomplish and is quite upfront about his assumptions. Look at this paper for a moment. I'm not saying this is the case in this instance, but, you will see one reason why I'm questioning the true plausibility of any of these experiments.
  
  "We note that solutions found in
  the laboratory need not be chemically
  similar or even directly relevant to the actual
  molecular assemblies that led to the origin of
  life on Earth."
  http://www.lapetus.uchile.cl/lapetus/archivos/1208817083Synthesizinglife.pdf
  
  That was from his earlier work in 2001, but, on the same subject. Like I said, I take my hat off to the guy because he appears to be an honest guy. Knowing this, however, we must really see how plausible all this is.
  
  BTW I did read the links you gave me, except for the last two we've been discussing, only skimmed those (been busy). Now, it is possible I misunderstood or missed something in the papers (any of them) or what you were trying to convey. This is why I ask you or anyone I debate or discuss any issues with, that they form their own arguments. All to often people say "see here, YOUTUBE or this link" and then once we begin all of the sudden "thats not what I meant" and I'm accused of a straw man. The video you presented shows this was done in the ocean at about 6:10. This is why I took up that aspect of argument. But I asked you what you thought the video showed or proved and I asked YOU to make your own argument. I told you I was not trying to put you on the spot I was merely trying to see what angle you were coming from, but, you never really made anything clear. Notice how as I am refuting the ocean scenario you are not countering it until the last few days. Now you are changing it, which is fine, of course. But we need the evidence for this now.
  
  I hope that in the future you don't post youtube videos as your answer to things unless you make it clear what parts you subscribe to and are relevant to our discussions.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 16th, 2011

• The foundational piece of work that this whole vent proposal is built on, goes to great lengths discussing thermal gradients across micro pores in water. Not salt water, not ocean water, plain old water. Do they give examples of thermal vent systems in the oceans to help people understand these are real world systems? Yes. Are their fresh water allegories with exactly the same properties? Yes. I showed you the Yellowstone example and that’s just scratching the surface. Anywhere you have a large lake of fresh water this situation works. In fact the other concentration method mentioned is concentration via evaporation and lakes are great places for that sort of thing. Also the assembly of building blocks could happen during the phase shift of liquid water to solid and that process is more likely to happen in a lake also. A large deep freshwater lake is actually much more suitable than a deep sea vent system.
  
  Also in the szostak paper they use salt water too and it doesn’t work out as well as the fresh water but you know whats funny? It still works in spite of the salt water. So salt water isn’t even some insurmountable barrier to the process.
  
  Back in 2001 before any of these experiments was szostak conservative about declaring the plausibility of the scenario laid out here? Yes. In his more recent papers he takes a much more definitive position by affirming based on experimental results the plausibility of the proposed scenario.
  
  Does the video represent a plausible scenario in spite of the salt? Yes. Would an even more plausible scenario be one with fresh water instead? Yes.
  
  Should you read the papers im talking about so we can have an intelligent conversation about this subject? Yes.
  http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9855/1/BAApnas07.pdf
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_et_al_JACS_2009.pdf
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_Ann_Rev_BP_2010.pdf

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 16th, 2011

• Hold on there... Chill out on giving yourself so much credit. All you had was the youtube video and you bought it hook line and sinker. YOU never raised the issue that this was NOT in the ocean only recently. From your comments I can tell you didn't read the papers you cited up until recently. It was only after I kept pressing by offering counters to the little assertions you kept pointing to... So relax and take some of your own advice.
  
  Having an intelligent conversation would be nice, also one where you are honest. Remember, the thread is still here and what you've said is still there for us to see.
  
  BTW you Yellowstone example is not really a good one. We are looking for prebiotic scenarios.
  
  Quote, "Anywhere you have a large lake of fresh water this situation works. In fact the other concentration method mentioned is concentration via evaporation and lakes are great places for that sort of thing."
  
  Not quite. The evaporation method is frowned upon by the very papers you cite, as it would cause a brine and hamper what the paper is trying to show. In fact, thats what the paper you cite is trying to overcome.
  
  Quote, "Also the assembly of building blocks could happen during the phase shift of liquid water to solid and that process is more likely to happen in a lake also."
  
  For that you need a wide range of temperatures. This is why some papers posit that it happened in stages outside of the vents or without thermal vents altogether.
  
  Quote, "Also in the szostak paper they use salt water too and it doesn’t work out as well as the fresh water but you know whats funny? It still works in spite of the salt water. So salt water isn’t even some insurmountable barrier to the process. "
  
  Not quite. There is a range that the vesicles can form in within certain temperatures and ph, but, its not very efficient. Not to mention the salt would destroy the phosphates and formaldehyde Szostak uses in his experiments.
  
  Quote, "Back in 2001 before any of these experiments was szostak conservative about declaring the plausibility of the scenario laid out here? Yes."
  
  I didn't cite the 2001 paper to show his conservative stance on his work, I cited it to show he is assuming and admitting he is assuming. BTW his conservative claims are recent, in his interview and in the abstracts and throughout his papers in his latest work.
  
  Quote, "In his more recent papers he takes a much more definitive position by affirming based on experimental results the plausibility of the proposed scenario."
  
  He never gives a reference for this to the best of my knowledge. This is exactly what I've mentioned quite a few times. You have not cited any earth conditions nor does Szostak in the places where he assumes them. This is what you need to do and you're not doing it.
  
  Quote, "Does the video represent a plausible scenario in spite of the salt? Yes"
  
  Actually it does not. In fact, this is the very reason why everyone is moving away from this scenario. I think you need to look up the word PLAUSIBLE again.
  
  Quote, "Should you read the papers im talking about so we can have an intelligent conversation about this subject? Yes."
  
  Right back at ya. :D

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 16th, 2011

• So, can you address the issues or not? Stop stalling and start presenting arguments.
  
  After taking into consideration what plausible prebiotic earth really means, not just making up the rules as you go along, present your evidence.
  
  And don't use the same ol cowardly, "argument by link" responses like you just did. You are making the claim, you must make the argument. I'm not supposed to go look and make are arguments for you.
  
  When you use the links you are supposed to use quotes from the links to support what you are arguing. Remember, we are not arguing if this can happen in a lab, we are arguing if this can happen via chemical laws under plausible prebiotic earth conditions. I am challenging that... Get it?
  
  Since I'm challenging the prebiotic conditions the experiments are supposed to represent, and I have for sometime now, YOU must address the conditions with peer reviewed articles supporting those conditions. Problem is Szostak himself doesn't, but, admits they are assumed and offers no support.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 16th, 2011

• Oh and here is a little hint for ya... When you solve one problem, make sure you don't create another... especially one that debunks the very papers you are trying to use as evidence.... in this case, Szostak's papers...
  
  I say this because I think I know what you are going to respond with... but, I don't want to assume. :D
  
  Please make clear what you intend to show/support with logical arguments.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 16th, 2011

• “BTW you Yellowstone example is not really a good one. We are looking for prebiotic scenarios.”
  
  Obviously it isn’t abiotic due to the modern proliferation of micro biology infesting every cranny of the surface of the planet but that wasn’t why I mentioned the Yellowstone freshwater hydrothermals. I mentioned them because they are an example of a geological process that exists today as it has existed for millions and probably billions of years on the earth. I mentioned them in case you doubted that hydrothermals could exist in freshwater.
  
  “The evaporation method is frowned upon by the very papers you cite, as it would cause a brine and hamper what the paper is trying to show.”
  
  As a concentration method it isn’t as efficient as the hydrothermal microchamber thermal gradient method, however it is a method of condensing the dilute building blocks into a more concentrated form aiding the process along.
  
  “For that you need a wide range of temperatures.”
  
  Like the kind of temperature changes that cause the surfaces of lakes to freeze in the winter. The point is that it aids in the process and helps to connect the formation of the building blocks to the assembly of the same building blocks into life into one location instead of having to rely on transport mechanisms to move the building blocks to an assembly point.
  
  “Not quite. There is a range that the vesicles can form in within certain temperatures and ph, but, its not very efficient. Not to mention the salt would destroy the phosphates and formaldehyde Szostak uses in his experiments.”
  
  No, from
  
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_et_al_JACS_2009.pdf
  
  “Within 24 h at a thermal gradient (ΔT) of 30 K, linear capillaries exhibited a significant concentrating effect, with a bottom-to-top concentration gradient of ∼800-fold as measured for the nonquenching fluorescent dye 8-hydroxypyrene-1,3,6-trisulfonic acid salt (HPTS) (Figure 1B).”
  
  And
  
  “We observed a similar concentration effect with fluorescently labeled nucleic acids.”
  
  And
  
  “Salt concentrations in this range would have limited the effectiveness of thermophoresis as a concentration mechanism in marine environments. Analogous fresh-water hydrothermal systems might therefore have provided a much more robust concentrating effect.”
  
  Meaning that the experiments were preformed with both salt and non salt water and under the salt conditions it worked but not nearly as well as non salt conditions.
  
  “I cited it to show he is assuming and admitting he is assuming.”
  
  Assuming what exactly that isn’t supported by the evidence?
  
  “BTW his conservative claims are recent, in his interview and in the abstracts and throughout his papers in his latest work.”
  
  “He never gives a reference for this to the best of my knowledge.”
  
  That interview was not recent at all I think it was from 2001 or there about. And as for his conservative stance in the recent abstracts; in those same abstracts he has stated that the process is plausible.
  
  From
  
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_Ann_Rev_BP_2010.pdf
  
  “Recent synthetic approaches to understanding the origin of life have yielded insights into plausible pathways for the emergence of the first cells.”
  
  And
  
  “Prebiotically relevant and geophysically reasonable methods for purifying and concentrating molecular building blocks have been proposed, leading to plausible pathways for the assembly of ordered, cell-like structures.”
  
  “Actually it does not. In fact, this is the very reason why everyone is moving away from this scenario. I think you need to look up the word PLAUSIBLE again.”
  
  I am the first to admit, in fact have been hammering on about it now, that fresh water is a more plausible scenario, however that does not completely rule out salt water as a less attractive possibility.
  
  “Right back at ya. :D”
  
  Then why do I keep quoting these same pa

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 16th, 2011

• “Right back at ya. :D”
  
  Then why do I keep quoting these same papers to contradict you? If you had read them I doubt you would make such easily refuted statements.
  
  “After taking into consideration what plausible prebiotic earth really means, not just making up the rules as you go along, present your evidence.”
  
  Im not making anything up, im referencing these papers
  
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications.html
  
  and this paper
  
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_et_al_JACS_2009.pdf
  
  They talk about what is a plausible prebiotic environment and im going by those definitions not my own.
  
  “You are making the claim, you must make the argument. I'm not supposed to go look and make are arguments for you.”
  
  I am not personally making the claim I am saying the claim has been made by much wiser men than me who have verified their claims scientifically and had their work reviewed by other experts who found no flaws. I am showing you the claims made by those men in their own words. I can try my best to explain those claims to you but I am not an expert in microbiology, biochemistry, or genetics so asking me to do the arguing is bound to introduce errors into the process by virtue of my mediating the transference of information. You are much better served to read the papers yourself so as to circumvent any such concerns. Then if you feel they are wrong I invite you to share those flaws you find with me so that I can learn from your insights and or help you to realize the flaws in your perceptions.
  
  “we are arguing if this can happen via chemical laws under plausible prebiotic earth conditions.”
  
  Well obviously. This body of work I have been presenting to you is intended to prove that according to chemical laws and in plausible prebiotic earth conditions this can happen. This body of work is specifically geared towards demonstrating exactly that.
  
  “YOU must address the conditions with peer reviewed articles supporting those conditions.”
  
  Here, this paper talks about it and gives footnote references to more information about it.
  
  http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9855/1/BAApnas07.pdf
  
  here is a direct quote from that paper.
  
  “From a geological point of view, thermal gradients are the most abundant dissipative systems on the early earth. They drive
  convective water flow with a wide variety of geometries. Contemporary hydrothermal vents, both black smokers and ‘‘Lost
  City’’ type vents, are only extreme cases for heat dissipation. Hydrothermal vents are surrounded by highly porous mineral
  precipitates.”

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 16th, 2011

• Quote, "Obviously it isn’t abiotic due to the modern proliferation of micro biology infesting every cranny of the surface of the planet but that wasn’t why I mentioned the Yellowstone freshwater hydrothermals. I mentioned them because they are an example of a geological process that exists today as it has existed for millions and probably billions of years on the earth. I mentioned them in case you doubted that hydrothermals could exist in freshwater."
  
  Fair enough.
  
  Quote, "As a concentration method it isn’t as efficient as the hydrothermal microchamber thermal gradient method, however it is a method of condensing the dilute building blocks into a more concentrated form aiding the process along."
  
  OK but this is not what you are arguing. You are arguing this all happened (at least this is what you are changing it to now) that this is happened in the thermal vents NOT somewhere else. If not, the papers you now cite do that anyway. This is why YOU (if you disagree with the papers you cite) need to make your own arguments. If I read those papers, they will lead me to believe what they say NOT what you believe. this is why "arguments by link" are so lame.
  
  Quote, "Like the kind of temperature changes that cause the surfaces of lakes to freeze in the winter. The point is that it aids in the process and helps to connect the formation of the building blocks to the assembly of the same building blocks into life into one location instead of having to rely on transport mechanisms to move the building blocks to an assembly point."
  
  Well not according to the Cal Tech paper you keep citing. That is the paper that states its not a good thing, in fact makes a problem since it creates a brine instead.
  
  I said, "Not quite. There is a range that the vesicles can form in within certain temperatures and ph, but, its not very efficient. Not to mention the salt would destroy the phosphates and formaldehyde Szostak uses in his experiments.”
  
  You then respond with three quotes but failed to see that your third quote showed another problem to what you are trying to support. Here it is... "“Salt concentrations in this range would have limited the effectiveness of thermophoresis as a concentration mechanism in marine environments. Analogous fresh-water hydrothermal systems might therefore have provided a much more robust concentrating effect.”
  
  Quote, "Meaning that the experiments were preformed with both salt and non salt water and under the salt conditions it worked but not nearly as well as non salt conditions."
  
  Meaning that it would fail to produce plausible results... You can't get around that.
  
  Quote, "Assuming what exactly that isn’t supported by the evidence?"
  
  Read what I quoted... Its making up the rules as he goes along. He states it himself... though not in those words.
  
  Quote, "That interview was not recent at all I think it was from 2001 or there about. And as for his conservative stance in the recent abstracts; in those same abstracts he has stated that the process is plausible."
  
  It wasn't just the interview it was his papers as well. All of the papers you cited in fact.
  
  For instance, "Recent experimental work
  has uncovered plausible physical pathways and
  mechanisms for at least some of these putative
  steps in the origin and early evolution of life."
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_Ann_Rev_BP_2010.pdf
  
  Notice his claims versus yours.
  
  Quote, "I am the first to admit, in fact have been hammering on about it now, that fresh water is a more plausible scenario, however that does not completely rule out salt water as a less attractive possibility."
  
  You've been hammering this point? Did you forget what you wrote is only a few days ago about this? You just switched gears dude. This whole time I had been arguing against the stupid YOUTUBE video about the ocean scenario and YOU NEVER BROUGHT THAT UP.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 17th, 2011

• Quote, "Then why do I keep quoting these same papers to contradict you? If you had read them I doubt you would make such easily refuted statements."
  
  You don't even stay within what the papers are claiming. You are not refuting anything I'm saying at all. Look back up through the comments, you just switched gears... I think you sorta realize it now and are now pretending you knew all along.
  
  But seriously, you need to make your arguments already. Don't think I don't see you dodging.
  
  Quote, "Im not making anything up, im referencing these papers"
  
  Well you need to do more than that since I am challenging your papers with other papers. You can't just dismiss them with a wave of your hand like you've been trying. Rebut already or make a new argument and I'll rebut.. but do something.
  
  Quote, "They talk about what is a plausible prebiotic environment and im going by those definitions not my own."
  
  They talk about? Uh.. You mean they plainly state they are assuming. Where is there a reference? Where is there a source? Where do they say anything more than an assertions without a single reference?
  
  Quote, "I am not personally making the claim I am saying the claim has been made by much wiser men than me who have verified their claims scientifically and had their work reviewed by other experts who found no flaws."
  
  No flaws? Gilaspy, they don't make any claims as to the environment on prebiotic earth... You ain't gonna find any flaw if that first step is granted. I am challenging that first step. Get it? I challenged it with a peer reviewed article.
  
  Quote, "I am showing you the claims made by those men in their own words. I can try my best to explain those claims to you but I am not an expert in microbiology, biochemistry, or genetics so asking me to do the arguing is bound to introduce errors into the process by virtue of my mediating the transference of information."
  
  Hmm.. honesty or cop out? Either way your case is weak then. With all due respect, rebut or concede.
  
  Quote, "You are much better served to read the papers yourself so as to circumvent any such concerns."
  
  I have but on two papers, but, that doesn't tell me what you agree with or disagree with.
  
  Quote, "Then if you feel they are wrong I invite you to share those flaws you find with me so that I can learn from your insights and or help you to realize the flaws in your perceptions."
  
  I did that and you keep side stepping it. From the beginning I have challenged the conditions or have called foul because NONE are given and are merely granted.
  
  Quote, "Well obviously. This body of work I have been presenting to you is intended to prove that according to chemical laws and in plausible prebiotic earth conditions this can happen. This body of work is specifically geared towards demonstrating exactly that."
  
  And it has utterly failed. Activated nucleotides that they created? Come on...
  
  Quote, "Here, this paper talks about it and gives footnote references to more information about it.
  
  http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9855/1/BAApnas07.pdf
  
  here is a direct quote from that paper."
  
  OK, I'll tell ya what... I said I didn't read the last two paper you cited, only skimmed through them. I will carefully read them.
  
  Regardless you still need to make an argument or present the evidence. You are just playing dodge ball here.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 17th, 2011

• Oh and what reference number are you talking about in the Cal tech paper?
  
  Again, I might not be one til Monday after today... Its not midnight where I am. Actually, close to 1am... Oh man!
  
  Good night.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 17th, 2011

• I'm sooooo sleeeeeeeepppyyyy...
  
  OK last one..
  
  This is peer reviewed and kills the plausibility of the fresh water angle. Szostak cites this guy in one of his papers I think... I can't remember precisely which one... Anyhow...
  
  "Such concerns might be overcome if life began in freshwater,
  but other difficulties then arise. Even on the present Earth,
  lakes, rivers, and ponds represent only 1% of the hydrosphere
  and tend to be relatively short-lived compared to permanent
  oceans. At the time of the origin of life, true continents had not
  developed, further limiting the availability of freshwater. Given
  these considerations, it is unlikely that nutrient solutions with
  the potential to support complex prebiotic chemistry would
  have occurred in freshwater environments."
  http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/2/239.pdf
  
  Remember, you need a hydrothermal vent in a fresh water area. As the paper points out, a fresh water anything, is unlikely. Plausibility is not a word the papers you cite should be using.
  
  And before you point to the date of the paper, I will remind you that age does not therefore disqualify a finding. Suppose a paper was written 1 billion years ago (I'm exaggerating and sleepy) that said "no square circles are possible" You would not conclude this was out of date merely because it was a billion years ago. IF the information is still relevant, it is still relevant. You can, of course, refute it with another peer reviewed article.
  
  Got one?
  
  
  
  Buenas noches!

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 17th, 2011

• Gee, there's just no way nature could produce fresh water of pH 6.5, drying and re-wetting pools, hot vents, hot polyphosphate-producing rocks, clay, and various small organic molecules in close proximity to each other. I mean, snow/ice near a volcanic feature with daily and seasonal variations in temperature and snow melting rates is just ludicrous.
  
  And no he doesnt cite that paper, i checked.
  
  All this boils down to you disagreeing with proven peer reviewed work and having little to nothing to back up your position other than your own vague interpertations on why it must not be so.
  
  How about for a change we talk about what I assume must be your mountain of peer reviewed articles laying out irrefutable proof for Divine intelliegnt intervention in the origin of life. After all you have such high standard of proof so im certain you must apply the same level of scepticism to your own beliefs.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 17th, 2011

• 25-25 million year old lake Baikal has active hydrothermal vent systems. Its also the deepest lake in the world. Also 1% of the earths water is a lot of water... just saying. So questions about if this sort of thing is naturally occuring are obviously unfounded. Also lake Tanganyika, the second deepest/largest in the world also has hydrothermal vents.
  
  But i guesse we need more proof that they exist right?

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 17th, 2011

• Playing dodge ball and ignoring the peer reviewed articles I cite isn't going to help you out. Did you notice you are presenting articles that show a process but not a plausible environment for the process to take place, with the exception of a few instances. But even those are highly questionable as the papers I have cited show.
  
  Quote, "Gee, there's just no way nature could produce fresh water of pH 6.5, drying and re-wetting pools, hot vents, hot polyphosphate-producing rocks, clay, and various small organic molecules in close proximity to each other."
  
  Not plausibly, no sir. I cited two papers that clearly point to this. The last paper talks about the unlikelihood of fresh water anything. The first one shows phosphates and formaldehyde are unlikely and the second one shows how unlikely EVEN if found, that the three chemicals Szostak needs are unlikely to be found together. Thats three peer reviewed articles that deal with this very same issues. Your papers only assert the conditions and blatantly so.
  
  Quote, "I mean, snow/ice near a volcanic feature with daily and seasonal variations in temperature and snow melting rates is just ludicrous."
  
  Daily and seasonal variations? You do realize the atmosphere was mostly hot...
  
  Quote, "And no he doesnt cite that paper, i checked."
  
  I said he cites the guy not that particular paper. But it matter not. The point is in the part I quoted and you must contend with it.
  
  Quote, "All this boils down to you disagreeing with proven peer reviewed work and having little to nothing to back up your position other than your own vague interpertations on why it must not be so."
  
  Don't pretend I haven't cited any peer reviewed articles. Now you are going form ignoring to lying...
  
  Quote, "How about for a change we talk about what I assume must be your mountain of peer reviewed articles laying out irrefutable proof for Divine intelliegnt intervention in the origin of life."
  
  I see you've run out of things to say. You are a one trick pony and a bluff intellect. No sir, you can either concede or rebut.
  
  Quote, "After all you have such high standard of proof so im certain you must apply the same level of scepticism to your own beliefs."
  
  Actually, Szostak's papers and its utter failure to show chemical law alone without far out scenarios that only work in a lab is pretty good evidence for what I originally stated as my stance that "there are no chemical laws that account for the arrangement of information."
  
  Quote, "25-25 million year old lake Baikal has active hydrothermal vent systems. Its also the deepest lake in the world. Also 1% of the earths water is a lot of water... just saying. So questions about if this sort of thing is naturally occuring are obviously unfounded. Also lake Tanganyika, the second deepest/largest in the world also has hydrothermal vents."
  
  OK, do you understand WHY this can't be taken into the prebiotic earth scenario? The reason is because there was less fresh water back then than there is NOW. Get it? The continents were not divided as they are today and this allows for less places for fresh water pools to collect. It appears that the earth was covered in more ocean water than at present... In other words, the ocean was bigger. Therefore, it is unlikely that much, if any, fresh water was available. To further compound the problem, you need a hydrothermal vent in place for this to work.
  
  "Even on the present Earth,
  lakes, rivers, and ponds represent only 1% of the hydrosphere
  and tend to be relatively short-lived compared to permanent
  oceans. At the time of the origin of life, true continents had not
  developed, further limiting the availability of freshwater. Given
  these considerations, it is unlikely that nutrient solutions with
  the potential to support complex prebiotic chemistry would
  have occurred in freshwater environments."
  http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/2/239.pdf
  
  Can you please look up the word plausible?

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 17th, 2011

• Its a beautiful day out here in California... I'm taking the day off. :D

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 17th, 2011

• Those environments are naturally occurring and not uncommon enough to present a real obstacle to being a plausible possibility. It sure is a lot more realistic than your fantasy backed up by nothing. Seriously if your last gasp argument is that these environmental conditions aren’t “common enough” then I call that a victory.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 17th, 2011

• And this newer paper says the exact opposite anyways.
  http://authors.library.caltech.edu/9855/1/BAApnas07.pdf
  
  “From a geological point of view, thermal gradients are the most abundant dissipative systems on the early earth. They drive
  convective water flow with a wide variety of geometries. Contemporary hydrothermal vents, both black smokers and ‘‘Lost
  City’’ type vents, are only extreme cases for heat dissipation. Hydrothermal vents are surrounded by highly porous mineral
  precipitates.”

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 17th, 2011

• Not to mention that your beliefs about the early conditions on earth being unsuitable for fresh water are based on outdated flawed ideas. This is nasa talking about what new research has indicated, directly contradicting your position. See all three pages.
  
  
  http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Zircon/zircon.php
  
  Also found this pretty interesting
  
  "Eventually these sterilizing impacts ceased, and even the largest subsequent impacts left a few survivors in protected locations, such as ocean-floor hot springs. Evidence of this history appears in the organisms that sit at the root of the universal family tree of life: the most ancient common ancestors of life on Earth are heat-loving microorganisms that don’t need oxygen to survive. Such heat-loving microbes are the sort of creatures we would expect to survive the final, near-sterilizing impacts of the Hadean."

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 17th, 2011

• "A surprising new study by an international team of researchers has concluded Earth's continents most likely were in place soon after the planet was formed, overturning a long-held theory that the early planet was either moon-like or dominated by oceans."
  
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/11/051117180831.htm
  
  The experts would not say its plausible if its not plausible. Our lack formal education on the subject and sad attempts to research this issue via internet will never bring either of us close to the level of understanding on the subject that led to a person like sozstak declaring the scenario plausible.
  
  If the best you can do is try to contradict the experts with out of date ideas then i feel sorry for you. After all your own ideas are so completely unsupportable that they only look like an option in the absense of any other alternative (a god of the gaps argument).

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 17th, 2011

• "there are no chemical laws that account for the arrangement of information."
  
  There dont have to be special chemical laws for it because the regular ones work just fine.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 18th, 2011

• Do you remember when I said, solving one problem creates another. This time, the problem is even worse. This research from 2005 is interesting, but, similar and more recent information reveals more on these very same findings. Lets take a look.
  
  "A new analysis of ancient minerals called zircons suggests that a harsh climate may have scoured and possibly even destroyed the surface of the Earth's earliest continents."
  
  "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can combine with water to form carbonic acid, which falls as acid rain. The early Earth's atmosphere is believed to have contained extremely high levels of carbon dioxide — maybe 10,000 times as much as today."
  
  "At [those levels], you would have had vicious acid rain and intense greenhouse [effects]. That is a condition that will dissolve rocks," Valley says. "If granites were on the surface of the Earth, they would have been destroyed almost immediately — geologically speaking — and the only remnants that we could recognize as ancient would be these zircons."
  http://www.news.wisc.edu/15317
  
  In the early earth, we got acid rain about 10,000 times higher than we have on earth now, destroying whatever continents were there. This also means that whatever water did collect was acidic not alkaline as needed in the Szostak experiments.
  
  In other words, this really upends what you were trying to hope for with continents being available for fresh water to collect.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 18th, 2011

• So whether there were large continents or not, whether there were areas for water to collect or not, the water would have been acidic.
  
  So, the YOUTUBE video has been trashed since it used the oceans as an example, and the angle you were trying has been trounced by the most current understandings of early earth.
  
  OH, and before you go with "he's a Noble Laurette" and "you're a layman" and similar comebacks, I will remind you that these findings are from geologist and Dr. Szostak is not a geologist. Hence, his opinion on the matter, by your own logic, makes it a laymens opinion.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 18th, 2011

• Correction!!! The CO2 in the atmosphere would have been 10,000 times higher than at present.
  
  In any event, the rain would be acidic and the rest of the points stand.
  
  Just remember, an assertion by anyone needs to be supported by evidence and the evidence must logically lead to the conclusion.
  
  No matter if they are experts in their field or laymens.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 18th, 2011

• Again, if the experiment was successful and done correctly with the matching environmental characteristics of the earth, what does it prove, only that a group of people with their collective intelligence is able to create life.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 18th, 2011

• ya guys, youre so smart, it must have been your immaginary super friend that created life. Theres no way that this proven process could have done it because obviously you know they were wrong and it never could have happened that way. Please hand me the coolaid.
  
  laugh my ass off. I feel sorry for you people.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 18th, 2011

• The earth was cool, liquid water was everywhere, and the carbon dioxide was trapped by the plate tectonic process.
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/science/02eart.html?pagewanted=2&8dpc
  
  I know this is just a new york times article but it synthesizes the various threads of research into a coherent picture so that folks such as us will be better able to understand.
  
  If you insist I can find the articles by the various researchers cited by the article but I dont see the point.
  
  I mean why would a guy like szostak, familiar with the latest research, say its plausible if its not? And more than that there is no way he could get it published that it was plausible if the conditions to make it plausible weren’t in place.
  
  Omo
  
  You are wrong. Ive explained this to you over and over again. Ill try an analogy and see if this helps.
  
  If you do an experiment that proves by dropping a bowling ball and a pool ball off a roof that they hit the ground at the same time does that mean that the only way it can happen is if people do it? No, obviously not. We humans are just duplicating or investigating some naturally occurring condition or situation to get a better understanding of its implications.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 18th, 2011

• Let me give you a more accurate analogy:
  gillaspy junior is a special needs child. For whatever reason junior is given an assessment test on calculus and trigonometry in which he scores 100. The only problem is Junior did not really take the test, daddy took the test for him.
  
  The school board knows that it is extremely unlikely for Junior to get such a high score and to prove their theory they ask other special needs people to take the same test all of whom score no more than 6 percent on average. They ask Junior to take the test again. He scores 5 percent.
  
  Clearly someone with above average intelligence took the test.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 18th, 2011

• OMO
  
  Your analogy does not have any relevance to this situation. The processes and mechanisms being discussed by szostak and his contemporaries are naturally occurring and require no intelligent guidance. For example, in a lab its possible to create rain. Does that mean that Rain requires intelligence? No, obviously not. By recreating the conditions where rain naturally happens we can get rain to occur. In the same way these experiments by szostak and his contemporaries recreate the conditions and observe what would happen naturally on its own.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 18th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "ya guys, youre so smart, it must have been your immaginary super friend that created life. Theres no way that this proven process could have done it because obviously you know they were wrong and it never could have happened that way. Please hand me the coolaid.
  
  laugh my ass off. I feel sorry for you people."
  
  I feel sorry for you... Look at how much of a sore loser you are turning out to be. See what happens when you strongly assert things you don't know?
  
  Quote, "The earth was cool, liquid water was everywhere, and the carbon dioxide was trapped by the plate tectonic process."
  
  No one on here has disputed whether or not liquid water was around... And as for carbon dioxide being trapped by the overturning of plate Tectonics, it doesn't look like it would help you out either. Why? You still need continents for the water to collect and with plate tectonics overturning to the point that it affects the atmosphere whatever was formed would not be there too long. Furthermore, this study was from 2005 and the one I showed you was from 2008.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 18th, 2011

• You should have read that paper you cited a little better. The plate tectonic thing isn't a widely accepted hypothesis.
  
  Quote, "Dr. Valley has also concluded the Earth became cool and watery early in its history, but remains skeptical about the inferences about plate tectonics."
  
  So you want us to believe this while this there is still doubt about the inference? I think not...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 18th, 2011

• Ooops... The one you cite is also from 2008 but it was also earlier work from the same team or researchers from 2005.
  
  The difference between the papers is in the inferences made. However, it seems that the one you are using give other types of problems. If this was true and the CO2 was trapped by plate tectonic action, then this would have stopped the greenhouse effect. HOWEVER, if this was the case, then other greenhouse gases would be needed or else the temperature would have dropped drastically and we would have had frozen oceans... Again with the problems for your ideas to pan out.
  
  I did find where they posit methane gas as a greenhouse gas but its not even a hypothesis as they have no idea where to even assume it came from other than volcanoes and hydrothermal vents. But that comes with another price tag. Assuming this was the case, this would have been during the Archean age not Hadean, which leaves less time for abiogenesis and probability.
  
  Its just not working out with Szostak's experiments.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 18th, 2011

• "Your analogy does not have any relevance to this situation. The processes and mechanisms being discussed by szostak and his contemporaries are naturally occurring and require no intelligent guidance. For example, in a lab its possible to create rain. Does that mean that Rain requires intelligence? No, obviously not. By recreating the conditions where rain naturally happens we can get rain to occur. In the same way these experiments by szostak and his contemporaries recreate the conditions and observe what would happen naturally on its own."
  
  Comparing a weather experiment to creating cells is like comparing tic tac toe to 3D Chess. Anyone can master tic tac toe but few can master 3D Chess. Rainfall is a proven cycle that is observable and has few factors. There is very little complexity in the water cycle when compared to cells forming. BTW in all the experiments no one has been able to create a modern cell.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 19th, 2011

• Youre wrong, refuted by your own paper. again.
  
  http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/2/239.pdf page 258
  
  “As a result, we can assume with considerable confidence that a source of relatively simple organic molecules was available on the early Earth and that such molecules accumulated in oceans, lakes, and perhaps marine hydrothermal systems.”
  
  “You still need continents for the water to collect and with plate tectonics overturning to the point that it affects the atmosphere whatever was formed would not be there too long.”
  
  Wrong, your personal speculation, and demonstrates how little you understand about plate tectonics.
  
  “temperature would have dropped drastically and we would have had frozen oceans”
  
  That’s the new model, frozen oceans. But that’s the great thing about the geothermal model, it melts the local water.
  
  Noticed how you ignored this. How convenient
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/science/02eart.html?pagewanted=2&8dpc
  
  “Genetic studies of current life support that notion, pointing to an organism that lived in a high-temperature environment as the last common ancestor.”
  
  “Its just not working out with Szostak's experiments”
  
  The only thing not working with szostaks experiments is your closed minded lack of understanding on the subjects. But heck you think an imaginary super being is a plausible scenario so I don’t know why I ever believed that a rational conversation was even on the table.
  
  “Look at how much of a sore loser you are turning out to be.”
  
  I haven’t lost. I won this argument. or as you like to say, "right back at you"

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 19th, 2011

• http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/2/239.pdf
  “It seems likely that a laboratory version of an encapsulated replicating system of molecules is a real possibility in the near
  future.”
  
  For shadowing szostaks work perfectly.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 19th, 2011

• OMO
  
  “Comparing a weather experiment to creating cells is like comparing tic tac toe to 3D Chess. Anyone can master tic tac toe but few can master 3D Chess. Rainfall is a proven cycle that is observable and has few factors. There is very little complexity in the water cycle when compared to cells forming. BTW in all the experiments no one has been able to create a modern cell.”
  
  That’s why its called an “analogy”. You see what I did was use a simple example to illustrate the concept. Sure the abiogenesis of life is more complicated and less accessible to our everyday experiences but the concept is the same. Reassemble the environmental conditions and see what would have happened all on its own in those conditions.
  
  And yeah no one has been able to create a modern cell in a lab but if you had been paying attention to even a little of the substance in this discussion you would already realize that modern cells evolved after hundreds of millions if not a billion years from even more primitive life. If a modern cell suddenly appeared in a Petri dish in a lab that would prove your imaginary super friend is real.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 19th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "Youre wrong, refuted by your own paper. again.
  
  http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/2/239.pdf page 258
  
  “As a result, we can assume with considerable confidence that a source of relatively simple organic molecules was available on the early Earth and that such molecules accumulated in oceans, lakes, and perhaps marine hydrothermal systems.”
  
  Uh... under what "NEW" scenario would this work under? Remember, if its a result of ice your Cal Tech paper says it would form a brine to thick and mixed for this to be plausible, if you meant in freshwater thermalvents the acid rain would cancel that out since it would affect the ph, if you meant the scenario with plate tectonics overturning to the point it traps CO2 its not even held as a theory or even a hypothesis, more like speculation. But even that last one will give you problems just as with the melting ice scenario. Again, solving one problem creates another that is detrimental to Szostak's experiment.
  
  Quote, "Wrong, your personal speculation, and demonstrates how little you understand about plate tectonics."
  
  Seriously? My speculation? Is that what your responses have come down to? You have no argument so you go back to, in essence, the childish "you're a laymen" answer in a can just repackaged so it looks different.
  
  Quote, "That’s the new model, frozen oceans. But that’s the great thing about the geothermal model, it melts the local water."
  
  And then you got the whole "brine" problem to contend with and less access to molecules for diversity.
  
  Quote, "Noticed how you ignored this. How convenient
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/science/02eart.html?pagewanted=2&8dpc
  
  “Genetic studies of current life support that notion, pointing to an organism that lived in a high-temperature environment as the last common ancestor.”
  
  Who said organisms couldn't live at high temperatures? This is a straw man. You went from childish rants to straw man's again. I said that the temperatures needed for Szostak's experiments are much lower than is likely in thermal vents. He needs room temperature to near freezing. And thats not all but that was only dealing with temps.... You are reaching now, you are trying to change the subject looking for any possible way to hold on.... I love it. :D
  
  Quote, "The only thing not working with szostaks experiments is your closed minded lack of understanding on the subjects. But heck you think an imaginary super being is a plausible scenario so I don’t know why I ever believed that a rational conversation was even on the table."
  
  Oopsy... Sounds like someone is getting cranky again. Awwww... Did the mean theist use logic on you again? Don't worry, you don't need logic, just believe whatever the smart scientist guy tells you even if the evidence is lacking.... There now all better.
  
  Quote, "I haven’t lost. I won this argument. or as you like to say, "right back at you"
  
  Yeah, thats the spirit!!! You just keep telling that mean theist that... Someone will eventually believe it... Maybe you may even start believing it... Just say, "I haven’t lost. I won this argument." "I haven’t lost. I won this argument." "I haven’t lost. I won this argument." and click your heels at the end.
  
  Quote, "http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/2/239.pdf
  “It seems likely that a laboratory version of an encapsulated replicating system of molecules is a real possibility in the near
  future.”
  
  For shadowing szostaks work perfectly."
  
  
  Uhhhh.... You need a scenario... Pick one...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 19th, 2011

• After you pick one, or before you pick one, you should really see if it allows for Szostak's experiment to be plausible.
  
  
  Soooooo we need to see your peer reviewed paper that shows the likely environment.
  
  Will it be the plate tectonic CO2 robbing scenario? Whatever it is, we need peer reviewed or a well reasoned argument using past but factually relevant scenarios.
  
  Get it?
  
  It can't be relevant because you like it. LOL!
  
  It must be relevant, even if older, because its stood the test of time due to evidence still supporting it.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 19th, 2011

• First I it is ridiculous you wont even address the fact that I have repeatedly proved you wrong on numerous issues. The most recent being lakes of fresh water.
  
  “Uh... under what "NEW" scenario would this work under? Remember, if its a result of ice your Cal Tech paper says it would form a brine to thick and mixed for this to be plausible, if you meant in freshwater thermalvents the acid rain would cancel that out since it would affect the ph, if you meant the scenario with plate tectonics overturning to the point it traps CO2 its not even held as a theory or even a hypothesis, more like speculation. But even that last one will give you problems just as with the melting ice scenario. Again, solving one problem creates another that is detrimental to Szostak's experiment.”
  
  Just the surface would freeze and only temporarily between impacts that vaporized most of the water completely. But the fact that there would be some freezing is actually good for the formation of some complex organic molecules.
  
  Acid rain isn’t an issue because the plate tectonics trap the acid rain causing greenhouse gasses.
  
  It’s a plausible scenario that fits with the evidence available. You may not like it but it fits within the available evidence and provides the correct environmental conditions. Plausible.
  
  “Seriously? My speculation? Is that what your responses have come down to? You have no argument so you go back to, in essence, the childish "you're a laymen" answer in a can just repackaged so it looks different.”
  
  Considering how I had just quoted from the paper you brought to my attention about the near certainty of lakes I felt that further extrapolation was unnecessary. Maybe I should have quoted your paper again about the near certainty of lakes full of organic molecules before telling you that you were wrong.
  
  “And then you got the whole "brine" problem to contend with and less access to molecules for diversity.”
  
  Some ice is good, especially when that ice melts and freezes again in cycles a lot of times because that can help lead to the generation of the necessary building blocks for life. However considering the heat radiating from the earth being three times as high and the crust being thinner it seems likely that vast reserves collocated with geothermal active sites would remain in liquid form both in fresh water environs as well as marine ones. Even the occasional flash boiling of most of the water wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. The dilute nature of the requisite building blocks for life would be extremely concentrated after such an event thus facilitating the assembly process.
  
  “Who said organisms couldn't live at high temperatures? This is a straw man. You went from childish rants to straw man's again. I said that the temperatures needed for Szostak's experiments are much lower than is likely in thermal vents. He needs room temperature to near freezing. And thats not all but that was only dealing with temps.... You are reaching now, you are trying to change the subject looking for any possible way to hold on.... I love it. :D”
  
  You dodged it again. The point was that the last common ancestor of all life is a single celled organism that lives in geothermal vents. That may not be proof positive but it is good circumstantial evidence. Ill quote it again below so you can address it if you have the courage.
  
  “Genetic studies of current life support that notion, pointing to an organism that lived in a high-temperature environment as the last common ancestor.”
  
  “He needs room temperature to near freezing.”
  
  Not according to this paper that I already showed you.
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_et_al_JACS_2009.pdf
  In essence this paper shows that the hydro thermal vent scenario is compatible with his models for proto cell membranes and encapsulation of rudimentary genetics in the form of self replicating polymers.
  
  Lets just pause for a minute…

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 19th, 2011

• So far I have refuted and explained everything you’ve tried to throw at me. In some cases using the papers you got from google to disprove the very points you were trying to use them to make. All of the supposed challenges to the plausibility of the scenario in question have been proved as anything but every time. Still you manage to crow on about how there must be this issue or that making the process impossible. Eventually you will run out of steam, I will outlast you.
  
  “Oopsy... Sounds like someone is getting cranky again. Awwww... Did the mean theist use logic on you again? Don't worry, you don't need logic, just believe whatever the smart scientist guy tells you even if the evidence is lacking.... There now all better.”
  
  Your crack pot circular arguments hardly count as logical. An imaginary super friend for whose existence no evidence can be provided is not a logical thing to believe exists. Considering the things you count as logical I hardly think you are in a position to tout your own logic as superior or even worthy of consideration in a serious intellectual arena. Your infantalization and degrading language is offensive but I can hardly expect less considering you are almost out of steam and at the end of your rope with all your belief systems hanging by a thread. The evidence I cited stands for its self and has shown over and over again its robust resistance to your every attempt to undermine its credibility. Taking the scientists at their word is not necessary but in your case it would be advisable considering how you keep embarrassing yourself by being proved wrong over and over and over.
  
  “Yeah, thats the spirit!!! You just keep telling that mean theist that... Someone will eventually believe it... Maybe you may even start believing it... Just say, "I haven’t lost. I won this argument." "I haven’t lost. I won this argument." "I haven’t lost. I won this argument." and click your heels at the end.”
  
  Should I even address this? I think not. But I will say that, yes the argument so far is in my favor and if a winner needs to be decided at this point its clearly me. The model and mechanism of life creation based on documented evidence and research has proven itself valid time and time again as your objections are systematically overthrown.
  
  Have a nice day.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 19th, 2011

• Quote, "First I it is ridiculous you wont even address the fact that I have repeatedly proved you wrong on numerous issues. The most recent being lakes of fresh water."
  
  Uhhh... dude... I mentioned over and over that solving one problem leads to another. In other words, I recognize that some of the objections I have brought up you have addressed, but, that in doing so you create worse ones. Fresh water lakes with bad ph is not going to help you out. Freshwater lakes where there is not enough continents for water to collect lowers plausibility, etc, etc,.
  
  Quote, "Just the surface would freeze and only temporarily between impacts that vaporized most of the water completely. But the fact that there would be some freezing is actually good for the formation of some complex organic molecules. "
  
  But what is posited is that impacts would almost vaporize all the water. This kills your arguments again because it further limits the amount of time for abiogenesis to take place. Remember, there isn't a whole lot of time, even in the geological sense. We are talking about a few hundred million years.
  
  Quote, "Acid rain isn’t an issue because the plate tectonics trap the acid rain causing greenhouse gasses. "
  
  You forget this isn't even a hypothesis yet. A problem with that scenario is the lack of a methane source. The solutions are volcanoes. HOWEVER, if this is the solution, CO2 would also be coming out of them and we are back to square one... or at least you are with the acid rain problem in the atmosphere.
  
  Quote, "It’s a plausible scenario that fits with the evidence available. You may not like it but it fits within the available evidence and provides the correct environmental conditions. Plausible."
  
  Well, then, produce the peer reviewed article or form an argument on past data that is still factually relevant according to the evidence. I don't want to hear your assertions.
  
  Quote, "Considering how I had just quoted from the paper you brought to my attention about the near certainty of lakes I felt that further extrapolation was unnecessary. Maybe I should have quoted your paper again about the near certainty of lakes full of organic molecules before telling you that you were wrong."
  
  Lakes don't mean anything unless the ph is neutral AND there is a hydrothermal vent under them. Not every lake has this scenario further lowering the plausibility. Unless of course you go back the ocean and Lost City vents... But we'll encounter problems there too.
  
  Quote, "Some ice is good, especially when that ice melts and freezes again in cycles a lot of times because that can help lead to the generation of the necessary building blocks for life."
  
  Brine problem... Your Cal Tech link...
  
  Quote, "However considering the heat radiating from the earth being three times as high and the crust being thinner it seems likely that vast reserves collocated with geothermal active sites would remain in liquid form both in fresh water environs as well as marine ones."
  
  Sorry but the ph is still relevant and acidic. You can't get around the CO2 problem even with overturning plate tectonics. The only way is Lost city vents BUT the paper you bring in acknowledges its not a good scenario unless its in fresh water.. CO2 again, sorry.
  
  cont...

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 19th, 2011

• ...cont
  
  The only solution to the CO2 is the Lost City hydrothermal vents, but, they are not typical. This again, lowers probability and hence plausibility.
  
  Quote, "Some ice is good, especially when that ice melts and freezes again in cycles a lot of times because that can help lead to the generation of the necessary building blocks for life."
  
  Well, where can you get freezing temperatures in a hydrothermal vent? Or, if this take place on the surface, where can you get around the acidic rain problem? Remember, even if CO2 was swallowed by overturning plates tectonics, and instead methane is the green house gas of choice it must still come out of volcanoes... CO2 also comes out and you are back to square one.
  
  Quote, "However considering the heat radiating from the earth being three times as high and the crust being thinner it seems likely that vast reserves collocated with geothermal active sites would remain in liquid form both in fresh water environs as well as marine ones."
  
  OK but then you have concentration problems and the lack of the key ingredients in the Szostak experiment, like phosphates, formaldehyde and one more I forget.
  
  Quote, "Even the occasional flash boiling of most of the water wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing. The dilute nature of the requisite building blocks for life would be extremely concentrated after such an event thus facilitating the assembly process."
  
  That would create a concentration problem, the brine issue.
  
  Quote, "You dodged it again. The point was that the last common ancestor of all life is a single celled organism that lives in geothermal vents. That may not be proof positive but it is good circumstantial evidence. Ill quote it again below so you can address it if you have the courage.
  
  “Genetic studies of current life support that notion, pointing to an organism that lived in a high-temperature environment as the last common ancestor.”
  
  Nice try but thats not what I was responding to.
  
  YOU SAID: "“Genetic studies of current life support that notion, pointing to an organism that lived in a high-temperature environment as the last common ancestor.”
  
  I said I didn't challenge that. How in the world is that dodging? Straw man. LOL.
  
  Quote, "Not according to this paper that I already showed you.
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_et_al_JACS_2009.pdf
  In essence this paper shows that the hydro thermal vent scenario is compatible with his models for proto cell membranes and encapsulation of rudimentary genetics in the form of self replicating polymers."
  
  Ah, yes. I stand corrected on the freezing part. However, if you remember we went over that already and the paper admits you need freshwater hydrothermal vents NOT ocean water vents due to salt content.
  
  "during the late Hadean era.11,12
  Salt concentrations in this range would have limited the effectiveness
  of thermophoresis as a concentration mechanism in marine
  environments. Analogous fresh-water hydrothermal systems might
  therefore have provided a much more robust concentrating effect"
  http://genetics.mgh.harvard.edu/szostakweb/publications/Szostak_pdfs/Budin_et_al_JACS_2009.pdf
  
  And you countered with the Yosemite example BUT I brought up the acid rain and acidic lakes, etc, to which you then countered with new speculation of overturning plate tectonics but I then countered with CO2 still coming out of volcanoes along with methane for acidic rain to put you back at square one.... Do you even remember all of this?
  
  Quote, "Lets just pause for a minute…"
  
  OK.... But why? Are you stalling? Lets see.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 19th, 2011

• cont...
  
  Quote, "So far I have refuted and explained everything you’ve tried to throw at me."
  
  Ahem... "you countered with the Yosemite example BUT I brought up the acid rain and acidic lakes, etc, to which you then countered with new speculation of overturning plate tectonics but I then countered with CO2 still coming out of volcanoes along with methane for acidic rain to put you back at square one"
  
  Tag you're it. You have to refute my last example.
  
  Quote, "In some cases using the papers you got from google to disprove the very points you were trying to use them to make."
  
  Not really. You've presented some links but they have all been countered which is why its your turn. I was the one that brought up the last point you have yet to address with any evidence. Remember I asked you, if you were goign to go with overturning plate tectonics, for you to show methane was the most likely green house effect BUT that if it came from volcanoes you'd have to contend with CO2 also coming out.
  
  Quote, "All of the supposed challenges to the plausibility of the scenario in question have been proved as anything but every time. Still you manage to crow on about how there must be this issue or that making the process impossible."
  
  Its your turn... I'm waiting...
  
  Quote, " Eventually you will run out of steam, I will outlast you."
  
  Oh, I don't plan on leaving anytime soon. From the looks of your responses it seems you keep looking for the exit door, especially when you declare you've won. LOL. You seriously don't think anyone can't see through that?
  
  Quote, "Your crack pot circular arguments hardly count as logical. An imaginary super friend for whose existence no evidence can be provided is not a logical thing to believe exists. Considering the things you count as logical I hardly think you are in a position to tout your own logic as superior or even worthy of consideration in a serious intellectual arena."
  
  I'm not the one who is on the run. What happened to your YOUTUBE VID? Debunked. What happened to the "stone" of evidence on which Szostak built his experiments? NONE that didn't make another problem you just ignored.
  
  Quote, "Your infantalization and degrading language is offensive but I can hardly expect less considering you are almost out of steam and at the end of your rope with all your belief systems hanging by a thread."
  
  Hey, did you drink some of the Kool aid that was intended for me? Cuz ya sure sound delusional. I suggest a triple does of logic immediately to remedy this delusion... Oh and address the last point, the methane volcano CO2 issue. Its your turn. :D
  
  Quote, "The evidence I cited stands for its self and has shown over and over again its robust resistance to your every attempt to undermine its credibility."
  
  CO2 and methane please.
  
  Quote, "Taking the scientists at their word is not necessary but in your case it would be advisable considering how you keep embarrassing yourself by being proved wrong over and over and over."
  
  OK now click your heels three times instead of just the one. You're almost there Dorthy... Never mind the guy behind the green curtain.
  
  Quote, "Should I even address this? I think not. But I will say that, yes the argument so far is in my favor and if a winner needs to be decided at this point its clearly me. The model and mechanism of life creation based on documented evidence and research has proven itself valid time and time again as your objections are systematically overthrown."
  
  OK maybe you need to click those heels a few more times in order to for it to come true.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 19th, 2011

• Quick list of points made and rebutted recently and why and where we are at.
  
  1. In response to the point that your own paper admits it needs a fresh water hydrothermal vent--You countered with the Yosemite example.
  
  2. I then brought up the acid rain and acidic lakes, etc, and the issue of not being enough continents for water to collect in the first place.
  
  3. To which you then countered with new speculation of overturning plate tectonics.
  
  4. I then countered with CO2 still coming out of volcanoes along with methane for acidic rain to put you back at square one.
  
  Your turn.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 19th, 2011

• "
  Hey, did you drink some of the Kool aid that was intended for me? Cuz ya sure sound delusional. I suggest a triple does of logic immediately to remedy this delusion... Oh and address the last point, the methane volcano CO2 issue. Its your turn. :D"
  
  
  While you're at it can you cite any other process observable in nature in which simple ingredients combine to become increasingly complex?

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 19th, 2011

• I hope he really want's to stick around. This is only the beginning. The environment is what we are discussing, but, I have brought up other issues that I want to get to, like the arrangement of information, more specifically useful information, DMSO and activated nucleotides. Not to mention the whole RNA thing Szostak hopes builds a bridge to.... There is much, much more....
  
  
  
  This is going to be fun.
  
  Mr. gilaspy, please take a mental note of the short list. I think you are kinda lost. You can't just answer one issue when it makes another problem just as bad if not worse and then think you accomplished something.
  
  And how on earth do you think I've exhausted my arguments? Did you forget the other issues I have been waiting to bring in as well? In fact, I want you to pick an environment, a plausible one, so that we can get on with it.
  
  Unfortunately, you can't even get that to work for you. Instead you want to play dodge ball and declare victory. LOL. I think we all know you are desperately looking for the exit door because you have run out of arguments.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 19th, 2011

• “I then countered with CO2 still coming out of volcanoes along with methane for acidic rain to put you back at square one.”
  
  The turning over of tectonic plates leads to levels of greenhouse gas that does not cause acid rain to a degree that would be inhibitory to the process.
  
  
  “I suggest a triple does of logic immediately to remedy this delusion”
  
  Right back at you. After all you find it “logical” to believe in the existence of beings for whose existence no evidence can be provided. Obviously youre the one suffering ”dilusions”.
  
  “While you're at it can you cite any other process observable in nature in which simple ingredients combine to become increasingly complex?”
  
  Yes, this whole body of work is one huge example of such a process. From the assembly of the complex building blocks to their assembly through purely natural means is a great example. Also I can think of nothing more complex than a galaxy yet its amazingly complex structure and structures are all organized from less complex systems none of which are not understood.
  
  “I hope he really want's to stick around.”
  
  Why wouldn’t I? I am winning this argument after all…
  
  “like the arrangement of information”
  
  A non issue imagined by morons who don’t understand how dna works.
  
  “DMSO and activated nucleotides”
  
  I already addressed this in the context of the paper they were mentioned but since you don’t read the papers or understand them I can see why youre still baffled. In short by artificially engineering self replicating polymers advanced experiments can be preformed essentially skipping a few million years of evolution to see what would happen next.
  
  “Not to mention the whole RNA thing Szostak hopes builds a bridge to”
  
  This is also a non issue because the plausible path from A to B is already proved and in place. If you read any of the damn papers that ive put in your face repeatedly youd already know as much.
  
  “This is going to be fun.”
  
  Trouncing you intellectually is always a blast on my end.
  
  “I think you are kinda lost.”
  
  The only one lost here is you, wandering around in the dark searching for some scrap of something to preserve your dead delusional fantasies about how your super friend is responsible for something in this universe.
  
  “I want you to pick an environment, a plausible one, so that we can get on with it. “
  
  Freshwater hydrothermal systems are a plausible environment and so are ocean ones. You fail at reading comprehension because if you even read the papers I have repeatedly shoved in your ignorant face then I wouldn’t have to repeat this remedial garbage to you over and over.
  
  So that’s round five hundred and once again ive thoroughly trounced your every argument. I look forward to round 501 and my next chance to put your moronic sense of intellectual superiority back in its place.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 19th, 2011

• Can you and gillaspy01 stick to the argument and stop with the insults and ridiculously long responses? The question is "Does God exist?"

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 19th, 2011

• The question is "Does God exist?"
  
  No. And anyone who says otherwise has the burden to provide the proof and since in all of history no one has ever provided even the smallest scrap of evidence the prospects are dim. And since we established such a high standard for evidence in this conversation already (peer reviewed scientific documents) I demand nothing less when it comes to evidence for a god existing.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 19th, 2011

• Don't you also have the burden of proof to the contrary, that God does not exist? In your opinion has there ever been strong proof that God does not exist?
  
  What are your thoughts on miracles and near death experiences where people have glimpses of heaven? Of course there is no way to objectively document it.

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 20th, 2011

• “Don't you also have the burden of proof to the contrary, that God does not exist? In your opinion has there ever been strong proof that God does not exist?”
  
  No, because it is not up to me to disprove a fantasy that you choose to endorse despite there being no evidence for it being real. There has never been any proof that a god exists and that in and of itself is the strongest proof that one does not exist.
  
  “What are your thoughts on miracles and near death experiences where people have glimpses of heaven? Of course there is no way to objectively document it.”
  
  When the pineal gland is stimulated the same hallucinations take place. When the brain is starved of oxygen some of the same hallucinations take place. There are perfectly rational explanations for the hallucinations people experience near death.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 20th, 2011

• OMO
  
  Quote, "Can you and gillaspy01 stick to the argument and stop with the insults and ridiculously long responses? The question is "Does God exist?"
  
  You are quite right on the insults. I apologize to all for contributing to the childish tone. I will cease this immediately. Regarding the long post... well I make no promises. At times things have to addressed thoroughly. I will "try" and shorten the responses when possible.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 20th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  "No. And anyone who says otherwise has the burden to provide the proof and since in all of history no one has ever provided even the smallest scrap of evidence the prospects are dim. And since we established such a high standard for evidence in this conversation already (peer reviewed scientific documents) I demand nothing less when it comes to evidence for a god existing."
  
  Actually no. The rejection of a certain proposition asserts that another proposition is true. In this case, if you reject the proposition that God exists, you assert that "God does not exist" and that IS a proposition for which you then assume the burden of proof. Unless you claim you don't know and are agnostic but you cannot claim God does exist or God does not exist.
  
  Please see here: http://youtu.be/AHIIjfxr4o0
  
  Lets not start a youtube war here. I'm merely posting the link and not the video on here. If you want you can look at it or not.
  
  Now, onto your response.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 20th, 2011

• gilaspy
  
  Quote, "The turning over of tectonic plates leads to levels of greenhouse gas that does not cause acid rain to a degree that would be inhibitory to the process."
  
  Be specific. Lets not give "just so" answers. What types of green house gases are you in reference to?
  
  Quote, "Right back at you. After all you find it “logical” to believe in the existence of beings for whose existence no evidence can be provided. Obviously youre the one suffering ”dilusions”."
  
  Thanks but my beliefs on God is actually relevant right now. Consider me an atheist from here on out and stick to answering the arguments.
  
  Quote, "Why wouldn’t I? I am winning this argument after all…"
  
  Winning would be when I can't refute what you suggest and it lends support to chemical evolution in the models you suggest.
  
  Quote, " A non issue imagined by morons who don’t understand how dna works."
  
  Circular argument. This is what started this current conversation. You need to address that.
  
  Quote, "I already addressed this in the context of the paper they were mentioned but since you don’t read the papers or understand them I can see why youre still baffled. In short by artificially engineering self replicating polymers advanced experiments can be preformed essentially skipping a few million years of evolution to see what would happen next."
  
  No. You mentioned something but it wasn't discussed. I didn't rebut because it was not relevant at the time and I clearly mentioned I was not bringing it in at the time. I mentioned it so you would remember there is more to it than just the environment.
  
  Quote, "This is also a non issue because the plausible path from A to B is already proved and in place. If you read any of the damn papers that ive put in your face repeatedly youd already know as much."
  
  There are many steps in between that I will challenge but we are not there yet. You'll see what I mean.
  
  Quote, "Trouncing you intellectually is always a blast on my end."
  
  As I said, no more of this at least on my end.
  
  Quote, "The only one lost here is you, wandering around in the dark searching for some scrap of something to preserve your dead delusional fantasies about how your super friend is responsible for something in this universe."
  
  I mentioned this because you keep switching gears on me. Fist it was the youtube vid and ocean now its plate tectonics and different things in between. But lets tighten this up a bit.
  
  Quote, "Freshwater hydrothermal systems are a plausible environment and so are ocean ones. You fail at reading comprehension because if you even read the papers I have repeatedly shoved in your ignorant face then I wouldn’t have to repeat this remedial garbage to you over and over."
  
  Well the Cal Tech paper says ocean vents are not a good thing so I wanted to give you the chance to state your own arguments since you disagree. Shoving papers means nothing unless you agree with everything or mention what parts you agree with or not. We need clarity here not arguments by link.
  
  Quote, "So that’s round five hundred and once again ive thoroughly trounced your every argument. I look forward to round 501 and my next chance to put your moronic sense of intellectual superiority back in its place."
  
  No. You've responded with assertions and some new research about plate tectonics which I'll get to in a sec.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 20th, 2011

• Actually... lets tighten this up real good.
  
  Tell me if I have you correct...
  
  You are claiming that:
  
  1. Plate tectonics were established during the Hadean period.
  
  2. which would provide a place for freshwater to collect.
  
  3. There was no CO2 or very limited amounts so it would cancel acid rain via CO2.
  
  If this is correct let me know. If not, correct me with your arguments or statements as you see fit.
  
  Be back later hopefully.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 20th, 2011

• Hi NOS! I've been on Kauai visiting family and now catching up on this discussion. Did you know Illustra Media, the producer of Intelligent Design videos, has released their latest production in both normal DVD and Blu-ray format: "Metamorphosis", which examines how Materialism fails to account for the purposeful transformations seen in a number of insects. Here's a brief clip:
  
  http://www.metamorphosisthefilm.com/
  
  It is incredible that the evolutionist's response is that relating these outcomes to Intelligence is due to a "gap" in our knowledge of natural processes when indeed it is the very opposite. It is due to our knowledge and experience that we attribute these things to a Mind. The evidence spells out the answer not the absence of evidence.

  • Report
  

  by nick batchelor on July 20th, 2011

• “Actually no. The rejection of a certain proposition asserts that another proposition is true. In this case, if you reject the proposition that God exists, you assert that "God does not exist" and that IS a proposition for which you then assume the burden of proof. Unless you claim you don't know and are agnostic but you cannot claim God does exist or God does not exist.”
  
  People are not born believing in god. It takes cultural indoctrination to cause belief in a god. The reason 99% of Americans are not Muslim is that they were born into a predominantly Christian culture and the converse is true in Muslim cultures. We do not regularly teach our children fantasies are facts and the only other example I can even think of is Santa clause. Furthermore there is nothing in nature that would cause a person to form a belief in god spontaneously without cultural indoctrination because there is literally no evidence that any god has ever existed. You would not be expected to prove the delusions of a schizophrenic are false and this is exactly the same. The burden to prove rests with those making the claim and denial of your unsupported fantasy that you yourself can never produce evidence to support is not me making a claim of my own. Belief in unicorns and lack of belief in unicorns are not treated equally for exactly the same reasons that belief in gods and lack of belief in gods should not be treated equally.
  
  
  “You are claiming that:
  1. Plate tectonics were established during the Hadean period.”
  
  Or so there is some evidence from the zircon to suggest. However there is a serious lack of any kind of evidence from that murky period of earths history so I admit it’s a fuzzy picture at best.
  
  “2. which would provide a place for freshwater to collect.”
  
  Or so we are led to believe by people who study such things. For instance in this paper;
  http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/2/239.pdf page 258
  
  “As a result, we can assume with considerable confidence that a source of relatively simple organic molecules was available on the early Earth and that such molecules accumulated in oceans, lakes, and perhaps marine hydrothermal systems.”
  
  “3. There was no CO2 or very limited amounts so it would cancel acid rain via CO2.”
  
  There was certainly some CO2 liberated in the atmosphere but exact quantification is tough due to the before mentioned lack of any kind of evidence remaining from that era. But if the implications of the zircon plate tectonics is true then it is reasonable to assume that the nightmarish prospect of extreme acid rain is not certain.
  
  We are dealing with an almost total lack of physical evidence from that era in earths history and that certainly complicated things.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 20th, 2011

• Nick
  
  The evolution of metamorphic insects is not so misunderstood and only attributable to Intelligence as your creationist propaganda would have you believe.
  
  Here are some good papers on the subject by a very respectable scientist.
  
  This is him so you know he is credible
  
  http://www.hhmi.org/research/groupleaders/truman_bio.html#
  
  here are the two papers, one of them published in Nature.
  
  http://web.neurobio.arizona.edu/gronenberg/nrsc581/neuromodulation/endocrineevolution.pdf
  
  http://www.insecta.ufv.br/Entomologia/ent/disciplina/ban%20160/AULAT/aula8/truman.pdf
  
  But if you want to take that clip at face value then youre free to believe that butterflies must be “magical”.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 20th, 2011

• Hi NICK! Never heard of Illustra vid. But thanks for the link I will check it out when I can. Kinda in a rush now... What other things has Illustra done, are they affiliated with Discovery Institute? Just asking, maybe I have heard or seen their stuff and don't even know it.
  
  
  
  
  Gilaspy
  
  
  I'll try and respond to your latest comments when I can.
  
  Quick questions..
  
  Do you understand why a green house gas is needed?
  
  If so, do you agree with some researchers that you posted (I think) that stated they believe the dominant green house was methane?
  
  If you do agree with that, do you also agree that the source of the methane was volcanic?
  
  If you do not agree with the researchers on this, please, be specific and offer your own argument.
  
  
  
  See ya later guys! :D

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 20th, 2011

• OK back.
  
  Nick, I saw the video. Thanks for that, that was very nice. Creation is amazing.
  
  
  
  Gilaspy
  
  I will wait until you answer those questions so its neater and won't be all messy with the back and forth and misunderstandings that can and often do arise.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 20th, 2011

• NOS
  
  Go ahead and tell me what the issue you see with methane is and why you think it matters.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 20th, 2011

• This issue isn't methane so much, but, the timing, amount and period where methane was mostly likely the dominant green house gas, if it even was the dominant green gas at all. Scientist mostly abandoned the methane-ammonia hypothesis back in the 70, or 80s if I remember.
  
  But more evidence has come out to pretty much nullify that idea in the Hadean period as the link I posted you earlier clearly shows. This reduces the amount of time life had a chance to begin in.
  
  
  "The current analysis suggests a different scenario. Ushikubo and colleagues used a sophisticated new instrument called an ion microprobe to analyze isotope ratios of the element lithium in zircons from the Jack Hills in western Australia. By comparing these chemical fingerprints to lithium compositions in zircons from continental crust and primitive rocks similar to the Earth's mantle, they found evidence that the young planet already had the beginnings of continents, relatively cool temperatures and liquid water by the time the Australian zircons formed."
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080613170202.htm
  
  
  Oh and this is from that link as well: ""At 4.3 billion years ago, the Earth already had habitable conditions," Ushikubo says"
  
  This only means it wasn't magma and that continents started to form. If you think otherwise, you'd have to present a model that would work under "these" conditions with the acid rain.
  
  So, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, even if we had the beginnings of continents, we would have acid rain, hence, no place for freshwater pools with ph levels needed in the Szostak experiments.
  
  So here is a better question...
  
  During which period did life begin, Hadean, Archean, AND what was the dominant green house gas?
  
  Please make any corrections or adjustments to the question as you feel it necessary.
  
  And please, make your own arguments. I don't know how much you agree with the links you post and I don't want to attack Straw men. Be clear.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 23rd, 2011

• Help me find the material you are sourcing from that shows the acid rain would be too much for life even in spite of plate tectonics. It seems to me that your own quote calls the surface habitable for life even with the atmospheric conditions. Im not trying to be difficult, I just want to understand where youre getting your information from.
  
  And I don’t know when life started exactly, I don’t think anyone has been able to pin that down even to anything more specific than a couple hundred thousand year range. Ill look into it though and see what I can find.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 24th, 2011

• I asked this earlier but maybe it was overlooked. To your knowledge are there any other natural processes where simple things become complex?

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 24th, 2011

• OMO
  
  Mentioned earlier about how a galaxy is an example of emergent complexity. All the bits of matter individually following the rules of the fundamental forces come together into extremely complex structure.
  
  “A molecule of water is as basic as it gets—just an oxygen atom with two hydrogen atoms adhering to it. But throw a jillion of them together, and voilà, you get a substance with characteristics that the individual molecules do not possess on their own—liquidity, for instance. Emergent properties often beget emergent behaviors, and those of water are no exception. Cool water down enough and it becomes a solid, for instance; warm it up enough and it becomes a gas.”
  
  The properties of water emerge from groups of water molecules individually following the fundamental force laws.
  
  The fundamental force laws im referring to are electromagnetism, gravity, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interaction
  
  that’s just two, there are more, just google search for emergence.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 25th, 2011

• NOS
  
  http://www.springerlink.com/content/l607045125t007j8/
  “By the late Hadean, seawater pH probably had changed to close to neutral ( 6.8), and DIC and alkalinity were closer to present-day values.”
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11536595
  “We find that if the deep marine hydrothermal setting provided a suitable site, abiogenesis could have happened as early as 4,000 to 4,200 Myr ago, whereas at the surface of the Earth abiogenesis could have occurred between 3,700 and 4,000 Myr.”
  
  So it looks like the water was probably close to neutral and when life started depends on where it started.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 25th, 2011

• Sorry, to a break for a bit. I will look at the info you have and get back to you.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 26th, 2011

• OK took a look at the links you gave. Can I disagree with you in a respectful way and point out a few things without it coming off in a bad way? I hope so. Please imagine my tone as very pleasant and not condescending.
  
  The first link still has the problem of salt, and high salt.
  
  "Contrary to the hypothesis of an early Na-bicarbonateocean, our calculations suggest the possibility thatthe early oceans of Earth were a NaCl-dominatedaqueous solution, with somewhat higher DIC andalkalinity concentrations, higher saturation state,and the possibility of lower calcium concentrations."
  
  NaCl is pretty much what they see. This is not good for various reasons with the Szostak experiments. Salt is one huge problem for the vesicles and other things in Szostak's experiments, it was not only the ph. This is exactly why one of the links you posted moved this idea of Lost City hydrothermal vents to a freshwater scenario.
  
  Aside from that, did you see what other problem the first link brings in? Lets look...
  
  "It is distinctly possible thatthe concentration of calcium in seawater did not reachlevels like that of modern seawater until the latePrecambrian and thus constrained the timing of the"Big Bang" of organic evolution, the emergence of theshelled invertebrates at the beginning of thePhanerozoic."
  
  This pushes life to the Phanerozoic or Proterozoic instead of the Hadean or Archean... But this really doesn't support anything in the Szostak scenario since this is not taking place in the ocean for more reason than ph.
  
  The second link only says "it could" in reference to the big impacts that were said to have hit earth. Other than that, it really doesn't lend support to anything we are talking about.
  
  But thanks for the links. I find the calcium issue very interesting.
  
  Now let me gather the info you requested.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 26th, 2011

• Quote, "Help me find the material you are sourcing from that shows the acid rain would be too much for life even in spite of plate tectonics."
  
  Generally, thats not how you will find things stated. What I do is different. I look at what someone is claiming, in this case, initially, it was the YOUTUBE vid and then either you or Szostak. Then, I ask for details so that I know "how" it is and "why" it is that something is said to work and see if it truly is plausible. So, the question in my mind is not "can life arise" because that doesn't give us any parameters or starting points, details or anything to grasp so that actual inferences and deductions can take place.... Instead, I ask "how is it that life was supposed to arise by whatever hypothesis, theory, experiment, etc, in question" IN this case, its the Szostak experiment.
  
  Quote, "It seems to me that your own quote calls the surface habitable for life even with the atmospheric conditions."
  
  I addressed that already, remember? That link was not speaking about atmospheric conditions, it was speaking about continents. It is in that context "plausible" applies. But as I've stated, you'd have to show which model would work under those conditions.
  
  Quote, "Im not trying to be difficult, I just want to understand where youre getting your information from."
  
  Of course. I don't find a request such as you've just made as you being difficult. I didn't post them since I was in a hurry but you are right for asking me for this info.
  
  Quote, "And I don’t know when life started exactly, I don’t think anyone has been able to pin that down even to anything more specific than a couple hundred thousand year range. Ill look into it though and see what I can find."
  
  I didn't mean to the exact date. But if we don't have that, then all experiments are just experiments. We need a period to put them in so that we can really see how plausible any idea is. Take our modern atmosphere, no one claims it (life) happened in this atmosphere since Oxygen and other factors really hurt the building blocks of life. Conditions are very important or else we have weak speculation and experiments that only work in the lab.
  
  Now let me get those links and make a few comments.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 26th, 2011

• RE: Acidic rain.
  
  That the early earth's rain was acidic seems to be supported more and more. Though there have been new hypothesis to suggest that methane was a dominant green house gas they have not been very well supported. The following link deals more with temperatures as its intent as is seen in the papers conclusion, however, it rules out CH4-NH3 while favoring a CO2 atmosphere.
  
  "The present wisdom is that highly reduced CH4–NH3
  atmospheres are unlikely, while weakly reducedCO2–N2
  atmospheres with small amounts of H2 (approx. 0.1%)
  are likely (Walker 1977; Kasting 1993; Kasting & Brown
  1998)."
  http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~jfk4/PersonalPage/Pdf/Phl_Trans_B (Kasting&Howard)_06.pdf
  
  The paper mentions "work by Tian et al. (2005)" but notes, "However,
  CH4–NH3 atmospheres remain unlikely".
  
  This paper offers that very little methane (CH4) was formed in the Hadean atmosphere, further lending support to the idea it was NOT something of any significance as far as a greenhouse gas during the Hadean period.
  
  "Methane was arguably an important atmospheric
  constituent and greenhouse gas during much of
  Earth’s Precambrian era. Small amounts of methane
  (1–10 ppmv) should have been formed abiotically
  on the Hadean Earth from impacts and from serpentinization
  of ultramafic rocks on the seafloor."
  https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/EarlyEarth07-d/Kasting05-CH4Climate-Precambrian_Res_05.pdf
  
  The paper states that methane was in greater amounts, but, not by abiogenic sources. And this is a problem. Why? Lets look at a quote first.
  
  "Much larger CH4 concentrations (∼1000 ppmv
  or more) may have been present during the Late
  Archean/Paleoproterozoic, prior to the rise of O2. This
  methane would have been produced by methanogens
  that metabolized withCO2 andH2 from the atmosphere
  or acetate produced from fermentation of photosynthetically
  produced organic matter"
  
  The problem is that the increase is a result of methanogens (a biogenic source) of methane. This makes quite a conundrum of life. Why? Well, 1) this paper shows how abiogenic sources of methane are small from serpentinization. 2) It favors large amounts of methane, the amounts that would have a profound and changing effect to the earths atmosphere coming from living things.
  
  In other words it needs life to make methane in the magnitude required for the atmosphere to change BUT this kills the idea that methane was present prior to life so that life could even take place in the presence of large amounts of either CO2 or Sulfur dioxide. The logical implications are as follows.
  
  Put another way...
  
  If methane was not found prior to life in the order needed to affect the atmosphere and the earth was warm to hot (take your pick) then it follows that CO2 would be the dominant gas OR as others have been recently speculating, it would have been sulfur dioxide. If either of those gases are more likely, this kills any freshwater sources of any sort offered as a solution to the issues in Szostak's experiment, since either of those gases produces acidic rain. And since, even the paper you cite, shows salt was mostly what the make up of the ocean was and only slight amounts of DIC, this rules out the Szostak experiment taking place in the ocean.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 26th, 2011

• RE: Sulfur dioxide
  
  Assuming this was, at some point, a dominant or at least enough to be atmosphere changing, it would have produced acid rain as has been mentioned above. However, new information is coming out suggesting this was even worse for life and instead of warm to hot temperatures, we have cooler temps making harder for life.
  
  Title: Sugar-Grain Sized Meteorites Rocked the Climates of Early Earth and Mars, According to New Study
  
  "ScienceDaily (Apr. 1, 2011) — Bombardments of 'micro-meteorites' on Earth and Mars four billion years ago may have caused the planets' climates to cool dramatically, hampering their ability to support life, according to research published April 1 in the journal Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta......Professor Mark Sephton, an author of the study from the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, says: "Far less of the Sun's energy was reaching Earth 4 billion years ago, which would have made it hard for early life to emerge"
  
  If this is correct, there are more problems. Lets look...
  
  “Our hypothesis may also be important for understanding the early Earth,” Schrag says. “Before the origin of life, our atmosphere may have looked much like early Mars. Sulfur dioxide may have had an important role then as well.”
  
  If correct, the hypothesis implies that the oceans in which life evolved were much more acidic than previously thought. The early Earth may also provide a test for the hypothesis through the analysis of isotopes of sulfur in ancient mineral deposits."
  http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2007/12/sulfur-dioxide-may-have-helped-maintain-a-warm-early-mars/
  
  So, either sulfur dioxide or CO2 seems to be the clearly favored as opposed to methane in the latest findings. And either one of those is not good for the Szostak experiment and life emerging at some point by chemical law alone.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 26th, 2011

• RE: Plate tectonics
  
  That they started early on seems to be accepted. However, how much and for how long is a crucial piece of information that is needed for the plausibility of Szostak's and others, experiments to be carried out in freshwater on land. The question then becomes not if continents started, but, to what extent.
  
  "For the Gondwana supercontinent, K values of 4–6 indicate that at least 50% of the present-day volume of the continental crust was generated by the end of the Archean. "
  http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/39/4/407.short
  
  That paper suggest that by the "end" of the Archean period at least 50 percent of the Gondwana continent was formed.
  
  Assuming this is correct, and remembering that in our present land mass we only have about 1 percent freshwater, most of it frozen and kept safe in that way, the question then becomes, "how much water could have been present with less land mass than we currently have?"
  
  After answering that then we must factor in acid rain.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 26th, 2011

• So, whether plate tectonics were sufficiently formed or not, whether CO2 or sulfur dioxide, whether in the ocean or freshwater on land, the evidence is firmly stacked against Szostak's experiment and IMHO falsifies it.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 26th, 2011

• I forgot to post the Science Daily link.
  
  "Sugar-Grain Sized Meteorites Rocked the Climates of Early Earth and Mars, According to New Study"
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110401085320.htm

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 26th, 2011

• The properties of water emerge from groups of water molecules individually following the fundamental force laws.
  
  The fundamental force laws im referring to are electromagnetism, gravity, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear.
  
  
  That's a start however it was not quite what I had in mind. H2O is a simple molecule and the oceans are basically water and some other materials. Gravity is even simpler. One big blob is drawn to another big blob where they collide and form a bigger blob.
  
  My whole point is if abiogensis is possible then surely there are other examples in nature of comparable complexity

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 27th, 2011

• OMO
  
  Laws of nature do organize things, but, only to a point, unlike we see in DNA. What we see on earth is arrangement of chemicals in a specific way to carry out specific tasks like building structures out of proteins. There are no laws of nature to account for this phenomena in the way it is done with life.
  
  As more information comes out regarding our DNA we find that it is even more complex than initially thought. We now know that the so called "junk DNA" actually has a great deal to do with how genes are expressed. It used to be thought that genes were passed on to offspring and at times mutations, if beneficial, would be passed on and we would get evolution. Though it is true that genes are passed on from parent to offspring, the inference to evolution will be quickly out of date as this has been shown to be wrong. It appears that the "junk DNA" is what controls this much more than the "chance and natural selection" ideas of evolution. Though mutations can do, in a way, what the controlling parts of our DNA can do, it is not as efficient nor as beneficial as the "built in" way.
  
  Having this "built in" way, is more of adaption not evolution. Adaption from our preexisting (genotype) abilities is what we see and have seen in the past. We have variations within a "kind". This varies greatly depending on environment and diet. The variations possible would seem incalculable.
  
  Design is unavoidable.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 28th, 2011

• I'm sure gillaspy01 will disagree with you

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on July 28th, 2011

• this
  
  "You're constructing post-hoc rationalizations by which you can fit your pre-determined worldview with the given data. You're calling it 'logic' as an excuse, but what you're really doing is rationalizing. There's nothing else I could do here to change your mind, it's up to you."
  
  couldnt have said it better

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 28th, 2011

• Well you weren't supposed to change my mind you were supposed to refute what I have been saying with evidence. So far, all you've accomplished is making things worse for the Szostak experiment.
  
  Hmm... you're right, you can't say anything better than copy someone else's lines and toss them my way.
  
  Now, if can you are able to say something better at some point in the future, you know how to reach me. :D
  
  
  p.s. for those wondering gilaspy got that line, it was from this link: http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/8509744

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 28th, 2011

• I apologize for the way my previous comment comes off as. I hope you understand I do not want you to toss me lines. We have gone through this before, you need to rebut.
  
  If you do decide at some point to make your own arguments you will need to offer a reasonable alternative to the following accepted theories of the prebiotic scenario.
  
  1. Acidic rain by CO2 and/or Sulfur Dioxide.
  
  2. Offer an alternative to those gases existing and/or dominating the prebiotic earth, making sure it is a greenhouse gas.
  (if it happens to be methane, then it must refute the idea that methane was found in large amounts AFTER the emergence of life and you need an abiogenic source that is plausibly supported by evidence)
  
  After you refute those accepted theories of the prebiotic earth you can work on the following...
  
  
  3. Offer way for freshwater to be found and collected in plausible amounts in an environment with less land mass than we currently have. (keeping in mind we have about 2.5 to 3 percent with our current land mass, most of it frozen)
  
  4. Factor in how the plausibility of a hydrothermal vent occurring in a freshwater environment.
  
  5. Factor in an alkaline hydrothermal vent.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 28th, 2011

• Oh and make sure that when and if you do offer some type of refutation to those 5 points, you do not make the problem worse in some way. Offering an alternative is not the end in of itself. You need to make sure its compatible with the Szostak experiment you claim was conducted under plausible prebiotic earth conditions.
  
  I think we all know by now why Szostak didn't really cite any references for the environment he assumes.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 28th, 2011

• “So far, all you've accomplished is making things worse for the Szostak experiment.”
  
  You wanted a plausible environment I showed you continents, neutral Ph water, and hydrothermal vents, and the building blocks in sufficient concentrations, and an atmosphere that wouldn’t make prohibitive acid rain.
  
  You wanted a plausible process I showed you the process, verified in the lab.
  
  Every time you raise an objection it only requires cursory research to demonstrate it’s a non issue. You raise more objections, increasingly abstract and irrelevant. You can believe what you want but after a point my real life becomes more important than trying to educate you on these subjects.
  
  The future will bear out the ridiculousness of your backward beliefs.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 29th, 2011

• Quote, "You wanted a plausible environment I showed you continents,"
  
  You admitted that was "shaky" and that takes away any "plausible" claim you are making.
  
  Quote, "neutral Ph water,"
  
  In a hydrothermal vent (LOST CITY) in the ocean. The salt kills that example though.
  
  Quote, "and hydrothermal vents,"
  
  You don't have a plausible example on land with freshwater. Acid rain thing...
  
  Quote, " and the building blocks in sufficient concentrations,"
  
  That would be diluted in the ocean, which is why the link you posted said it would be plausible in freshwater. However, with reduced land mass and therefore less chance for freshwater to collect, the plausibility is hurt.
  
  Quote, "and an atmosphere that wouldn’t make prohibitive acid rain."
  
  I showed you peer reviewed papers that still have CO2 as the main gas and the latest research shows by a long shot that even with plate tectonics the CO2 is still acidic to the point it would dissolve granite almost instantly on a geological time scale. Unless you address that you can't claim you showed a plausible atmosphere without acid rain. (Not to mention the whole Sulfur dioxide thing)
  
  Quote, "You wanted a plausible process I showed you the process, verified in the lab."
  
  And it can't get out of the lab due to acid rain... among other 4 things.
  
  Quote, "Every time you raise an objection it only requires cursory research to demonstrate it’s a non issue."
  
  Well you can start with any of the 5 points I have brought up.
  
  Quote, "You raise more objections, increasingly abstract and irrelevant."
  
  How is acid rain, less land mass, salt in ocean, irrelevant or abstract? In fact, not only are they highly relevant, but, backed up by peer review. Abstract? With all due respect, do you know what abstract means?
  
  Quote, "You can believe what you want but after a point my real life becomes more important than trying to educate you on these subjects."
  
  I'm sorry you thought you were educating me in any way. If you look back through the thread you might be surprised to remember that you believed this was taking place in the ocean and then when your own papers said it was in freshwater you changed arguments... But I am glad you see your personal life as important.
  
  Quote, "The future will bear out the ridiculousness of your backward beliefs."
  
  You can keep your fingers crossed, I suppose. But, I'll stick with the evidence.
  
  If you ever decide to address the latest 5 points, it will be my pleasure to review them with you.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 30th, 2011

• "Well you can start with any of the 5 points I have brought up."
  
  i already addressed the five points you brought up. You refused the evidence for it contradicted your preconcieved notion. Like the other guy was saying, instead of starting with the evidence and creating a hypothesis you start with a conclusion and cherrypick/twist what you can find to fit it.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 31st, 2011

• To be more specific
  
  I showed you that there could have been continents as far back as almost as soon as the earth coalesced. That doesn’t mean that life started on those continents at that moment but it does make the window for water to capture on the surface of those continents very long.
  
  The number one gas in the air is nitrogen and it was then too and I showed you how the continents captured the ridiculous amounts of CO2 and brought them down to reasonable levels and maybe such low levels that the surface of the planet could dip below freezing from time to time back then. So since the acid rain is from the CO2 suddenly that’s not a problem anymore.
  
  Obviously it rained, and probably rained a lot. Imagine a scenario where a meteorite slams the planet and vaporizes most the water then over the next few hundred years there would be a non stop torrential downpour on every inch of the planet.
  
  I showed you the research that even by the late haydron era the oceans would have neutral ph so at the outside that’s probably when life started.
  
  So you’ve got hydrothermal vents possible anywhere water collects on a continent. I showed you the research about how the building blocks would be available in “lakes” in sufficient concentrations. The continents were probably thinner and hotter then than now so hydrothermals would be more common. But even on the earth now two of the oldest biggest lakes on the planet have hydrothermal systems.
  
  Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely, absolutely. Plausible, case closed. My daughter is crying and my wife needs me to run some errands. Life is calling and that’s all the time ive got for this conversation.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on July 31st, 2011

• Quote, "i already addressed the five points you brought up."
  
  Perhaps because you are busy with family life you haven't noticed that the points I brought in were after your last attempts. In other words, I was the last one to bring in information, making it your turn to rebut.
  
  Quote, "You refused the evidence for it contradicted your preconcieved notion."
  
  Any evidence that is refused has been by evidence that is current and relevant. Maybe you have something in mind but you haven't presented it. Go ahead and present it.
  
  Quote, "Like the other guy was saying, instead of starting with the evidence and creating a hypothesis you start with a conclusion and cherrypick/twist what you can find to fit it."
  
  People can say that but the threads that I am on speak otherwise. As you can see with the other guy, when he has been correct I have admitted when I have used faulty logic or don't have better answers. I don't have a problem saying I don't know something. I also don't cherry pick. Anything people give me I address or say I don't know, but, not dodge or cherry pick.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 31st, 2011

• Quote, "I showed you that there could have been continents as far back as almost as soon as the earth coalesced. That doesn’t mean that life started on those continents at that moment but it does make the window for water to capture on the surface of those continents very long."
  
  Not at all. Why? For the very reason many had offered life in the ocean as opposed to land. The reason is because water sources don't last very long on a geological time period on land. And that is what abiogenesis needs, long geological, stable time periods. Continents emerging doesn't mean much if they didn't last too long.
  
  Quote, "The number one gas in the air is nitrogen and it was then too and I showed you how the continents captured the ridiculous amounts of CO2 and brought them down to reasonable levels and maybe such low levels that the surface of the planet could dip below freezing from time to time back then. So since the acid rain is from the CO2 suddenly that’s not a problem anymore."
  
  Whoa there.... First off YOU even admitted this was "SHAKY". Are you back peddling now? Secondly, I showed you current evidence that showed that EVEN IF continents did capture large amounts of CO2, acid rain would still be a huge problem for continents, dissolving and destroying them. This completely falsifies anything you've brought in. I noticed you are dodging that....
  
  Quote, "Obviously it rained, and probably rained a lot. Imagine a scenario where a meteorite slams the planet and vaporizes most the water then over the next few hundred years there would be a non stop torrential downpour on every inch of the planet."
  
  I never disagreed with that...
  
  Quote, "I showed you the research that even by the late haydron era the oceans would have neutral ph so at the outside that’s probably when life started."
  
  Yeah but your own papers don't even agree that in the ocean this scenario is plausible due to dilution and salt. Look at your Lost city paper again. That paper admits this huge hurdle.
  
  Quote, "So you’ve got hydrothermal vents possible anywhere water collects on a continent."
  
  Wait, wait, wait. Where did that come from? Hydrothermal vents "ANYWHERE" that water collects? Are you serious? What piece of evidence said that? What research have you looked at that shows these vents just POP in whenever water falls and collects?
  
  Quote, "I showed you the research about how the building blocks would be available in “lakes” in sufficient concentrations."
  
  That point is null and void since you have acid rain to deal with. A point that even with plate tectonics, CO2 is still a huge factor that would destroy the surface of continents.
  
  Quote, "The continents were probably thinner and hotter then than now so hydrothermals would be more common. But even on the earth now two of the oldest biggest lakes on the planet have hydrothermal systems."
  
  CO2 or sulfur dioxide you are side stepping. Until you address that you don't have plausibility.
  
  Quote, "Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely, absolutely. Plausible, case closed."
  
  It doesn't work that way. You need to rebut or concede the five points.
  
  Quote, "My daughter is crying and my wife needs me to run some errands. Life is calling and that’s all the time ive got for this conversation."
  
  Oh don't worry, if you have family issues of course that would take precedence over this. I just notice, though, that every time it gets difficult you seem start looking for the exit. I remember when you kept saying "we" are laymen and wouldn't solve this over the interenet when the evidence for this taking place in the ocean was firmly stacked against you, even with your own papers. Then, you caught sight of how it is this was sided stepped and got a second wind. Then you said you would "out last me" and things like that.
  
  Go ahead and see yourself to the exit door because of family issues.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on July 31st, 2011

• Why don’t you tell me why you think that the rain would be too acidic in spite of the co2 capture due to plate tectonics. And how about some documentation asserting that in spite of the plate tectonics acid rain would be an issue. I lue of the fact that you can produce no such documentation im inclined to dismiss your argument as fastidious and irrelevant.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on August 2nd, 2011

• I did...
  
  No problem, I'll just go up on the thread and paste the info again. I made that argument immediately after you posted the ScienceDaily link dealing with the plate tectonics and C02.
  
  I wonder how much else you missed... So, I'll post the refutations briefly in a slightly different way.
  
  1. YOUTUBE vid-The example used in this vid was in the ocean. It was effectively refuted by showing salt to be damaging to vesicles forming, even by your own comment on July 15, 2011, quote, "Seawater also contains high concentrations of divalent salts, which prevent membrane assembly from fatty acids. These constraints suggest that analogous freshwater hydrothermal systems would have provided a more suitable environment for this concentrating mechanism."
  
  2. Lost city hydrothermal vent scenario-This was effectively shown to be implausible for the following reasons.
  
  2a)Limited land available for freshwater to collect compared to our current land mass. Here is one example
  "For the Gondwana supercontinent, K values of 4–6 indicate that at least 50% of the present-day volume of the continental crust was generated by the end of the Archean."
  http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/early/2011/03/07/G31785.1.abstract
  
  2b)Even with water collecting, the freshwater would be very limited considering even with our present land mass very little water 1-2.5 percent is actually freshwater.
  "Such concerns might be overcome if life began in freshwater,
  but other difficulties then arise. Even on the present Earth,
  lakes, rivers, and ponds represent only 1% of the hydrosphere"
  http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/2/239.pdf
  
  2c)Bodies of freshwater, on a geological time scale, tend to be short-lived.
  "tend to be relatively short-lived compared to permanent
  oceans. At the time of the origin of life, true continents had not
  developed, further limiting the availability of freshwater. Given
  these considerations, it is unlikely that nutrient solutions with
  the potential to support complex prebiotic chemistry would
  have occurred in freshwater environments."
  http://mmbr.asm.org/cgi/reprint/61/2/239.pdf
  
  Considering 2a-2c it is therefore unlikely that a "Lost City" type hydrothermal vent to be found where a body of water would also happen to be.
  
  2d) Acidic rain-Even if water collected and a reasonable amount of time could pass and a hydrothermal thermal vent were to happen be under a body of freshwater, the water would be acidic.
  ""A new analysis of ancient minerals called zircons suggests that a harsh climate may have scoured and possibly even destroyed the surface of the Earth's earliest continents."
  http://www.news.wisc.edu/15317
  
  Those are the points made that you have yet to counter.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on August 2nd, 2011

• Read my comments on July 26th 2011, you'll see I've already broke it down into separate comments. I even labeled them, "RE acidic rain" RE: Sulfur Dioxide" "RE Plate tectonics"... and other comments as well.
  
  All those points are covered and more links and arguments are presented on the date of July 26th, 2011.
  
  More on CO2 that I posted as well.
  
  "Ancient Mineral Shows Early Earth Climate Tough On Continents
  
  ScienceDaily (June 14, 2008) — A new analysis of ancient minerals called zircons suggests that a harsh climate may have scoured and possibly even destroyed the surface of the Earth's earliest continents..... Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can combine with water to form carbonic acid, which falls as acid rain. The early Earth's atmosphere is believed to have contained extremely high levels of carbon dioxide - maybe 10,000 times as much as today."
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080613170202.htm
  
  That as well as "2d" from my previous comment and the comment on July 26th, 2011 on CO2 with this link: http://www3.geosc.psu.edu/~jfk4/PersonalPage/Pdf/Phl_Trans_B (Kasting&Howard)_06.pdf
  
  On that last link, it mentions "work by Tian et al. (2005)" but notes, "However, CH4–NH3 atmospheres remain unlikely" and favors a C02 atmosphere.
  
  
  Oh and don't forget Sulfur dioxide also wreaking havoc on the continents. One or the other, CO2 or Sulfur dioxide, would have been devastating.
  
  "ScienceDaily (Apr. 1, 2011) — Bombardments of 'micro-meteorites' on Earth and Mars four billion years ago may have caused the planets' climates to cool dramatically, hampering their ability to support life, according to research published April 1 in the journal Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta......Professor Mark Sephton, an author of the study from the Department of Earth Science and Engineering at Imperial College London, says: "Far less of the Sun's energy was reaching Earth 4 billion years ago, which would have made it hard for early life to emerge"
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110401085320.htm
  
  All of that takes into account plate tectonics as you can see. And yet, the evidence suggests CO2 and/or sulfur dioxide still wreaking havoc on the continents due to acid rain.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on August 2nd, 2011

• BTW, this is just the prebiotic scenario. We haven't even gotten to the details of the methods used, like DMSO...
  
  The use of DMSO alone is enough to cast sufficient doubt as to the plausibility of Szostak's experiment.
  
  Can you guess why he would have used it?...
  
  Actually, never mind, lets just stick to our current subject.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on August 3rd, 2011

• Are there any other people who conducted abiogenesis experiments? Maybe their methods more closely matched the early earth environment and maybe they also failed at creating life at the cellular level.
  
  You guys have beat Szostak's work to death. Are there any other people to look at?

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on August 4th, 2011

• There are other people but none have come within anything as interesting as Szostak. This was supposed to be some answer to "keeping bad things outside while the good things on the inside" without complex proteins and machinery and cellular walls. However, it has been an utter failure for various reasons. I have only mentioned a few and only with the prebiotic conditions, we haven't even gone into the methods.
  
  In fact, the trend seems to be "peptide world" first rather than "RNA world" first. Szostak's experiment falls under the RNA first category. This is being abandoned.
  
  If you look up to one of my first pieces of evidence for refuting the Szostak experiment, you'll see the paper I used to show a few things with salt, phosphates, formaldehyde and something else. Well that paper offers the peptide first world as an answer to the difficulties of an RNA first world hypothesis.
  
  I also remember an "iron bubble" hypothesis that was some sort of Szostak type hypothesis. I would have to look for it again, but, it was basically some hybrid version of Szostak's experiment. But yeah, there are quite a few hypothesis. None, though, that can account for the arrangement of information and storage capacity, all while being in a nice Fibonacci sequence.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on August 5th, 2011

• asked my cousin who has a phd in biomedical and has done research to look over the material, she is and will get back to me with a better explination.

  • Report
  

  by gillaspy01 on August 6th, 2011

• I wonder if she would be willing to create an account and discuss this with me? I think it would be interesting.
  
  As far as better explanations, what were you in reference to?
  
  Better explanation to the plausible earth conditions?
  
  Better explanation on plausible levels of the chemicals needed or used in the Szostak experiment? If so, I especially wold love for her to address DMSO.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on August 6th, 2011

• and that shows how stupid people are.if you are having sex,seen xxxrated
  movies, pornography, a person who gratifies themselves or have a desire to be intimate with someone special.what do people think are the reason for sex ,is it pleasure yes and no.Gods design is purity,and marriage and the firstborn. God simply said love me more than sex for a while and i will do amazing things that will last forever.He left detailed and numerous teachings on the gift of sex.unless men are taught they become depraived like pornorgraphy is portraying. he wants a person who will forsake all others, obedience,and he will personally give you someone to love forever in
  euphoria!!! there is a place for porn in this world.God wants true pure souls that truly love Him. Would'nt you test a person who you wanted to spend the rest of your life with before you say i do.

  • Report
  

  by Carmen_M8282 on January 20th, 2012

• Hi Carmen. Not sure how any of that fits into our discussion. I agree that sex is a gift from God though.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on January 21st, 2012

• To all who try to state their case by the old "put up or shut up" analogy; Wake up in the morning and look at your alarm clock then ask yourself. "Could evolution have produced this"? There is no doubt that design and creation led to the creation of this object.
  When did intelligent design begin?
  What is it's potential?
  What is man's potential in this area?
  You can't just point to a link on the web to find answers to these questions.
  Simply look at man's part in how things came to be thus far. A logical mind would naturally come to the conclusion that evolution alone cannot be the answer.
  I was never one to rely on religion or belief to pacify my mind, but to deny creation, no matter how powerful you think your mind is, shows ignorance.

  • Report
  

  by Kylroy on January 26th, 2012

• Creationism is ignorance based upon ignorance, masquerading as superior knowledge, whose proponents lay claim to moral and intellectual superiority, but cannot display evidence to back up their falacious beliefs, because they have none.
  I know that clocks are designed and built, I've seen it happening, I've never seen a tree factory, or a plant making volcanoes or hurricanes, they form through natural processes, but are fantastically complicated things we do not yet fully understand, but we do not fill the gaps in our knowledge with god, we fill them with a list of questions to be answered, to do otherwise is a blatant display of ignorance.

  • Report
  

  by PocketNut is as sure as a peanut on January 31st, 2012

• Atheism is ignorance based upon ignorance, masquerading as superior knowledge, whose proponents lay claim to intellectual superiority, but cannot display evidence to back up their falacious beliefs, because they have none.
  
  BTW, who is talking about Creationism? Its a common misunderstanding, one I have been guilty of in the past, to believe Creationism is the same as Intelligent design. FYI, I'm not arguing for Creationism.
  
  Perhaps Kylroy is a Creationist, but, his argument is from design or something along those lines. It applies based on the unlikelihood of natural processes forming the DNA molecule or even the RNA without the aid of an intelligence.
  
  Aside from that we can deduce (not must infer) God exist by there being only one logical way for a finite effect coming into existence.

  • Report
  

  by no_one_special on January 31st, 2012

• I see you guys are back at it again. . . .

  • Report
  

  by One mans opinion on January 31st, 2012