Atheist vs Christian debate summary

[Voodoo Child]

Odds of an average protein molecule made up of 500 amino acids being arranged in the correct quantity and sequence in addition to the probability that all the amino acids are left handed and being combined with the proper peptide bonds 1 over 10 (950)

= 1 chance in 100, 000, 000 (add 942 zeros and your close)

Reference? You are quoting a statistic without specifying its context, thus it is meaningless. At what stage in the evolutionary/abiogenesistic scheme of things does number this apply to? What are the relative concentrations of left and right-handed amino acids? What are they being "arranged" by? Chance? A ribosome? Flying unicorns? I rather suspect that some moron has calculated the chance of a protein spontaneously assembling itself out of its composite ingredients where the amino acids exist in equal concentrations of their stero-isomers. This doesn't mimic any theory of abiogenesis so is irrelevant and deceptive.

When it comes to the haemoglobin molecules, there are 574 amino acids which means the odds are even less probable.
In only one out of your billions of red blood cells, there are 280,000,000 haemoglobin molecules.

You're suggesting that naturalistic evolution requires the chance assembly of a haemoglobin molecule? 280 million of them? This is asinine. The haemoglobin in your blood is made by your red blood cells. It evolved from an ever so slightly simpler version of haemoglobin. Have you calculated the odds for that?

 

[Prisme]

Learn to read then critise others

Fine, bad paraphrase. But you failed to read my comments well again:

What is empirical is that we KNOW FOR A FACT that man has forever been predisposed to believe in greater beings. (calling them myths insinuates they are false, they however took them as real) This does not show empirically that Gods exist, it simply suggest that maybe there is something to it. An inateness that show us a prefered state of beigness over the other that are undesireable.
Quote: "MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON"

Geez I hate typing twice the same post... :0

If you make a subjective value judgement that all faith derives from ignorance that's your choice, but not fact.

As for your quote, its not worth much. May if I quoted the damn Bible I could do an equivalently bad and invalid argument of authority.

If I really must comment on it, I would say that science will never explain everything and that Ms Dr. is on a crack trip if she thinks we are finally closing in on a final conclusion on every phenomena in the universe. She is simply preaching as a priest would do for her congregation: without any tangible statement, anything is true.

Verdict: To vague, nothing to be verified in the article.

Kinda like:
The greatest mystery of the universe will yield to us another great and unexpected path to mankind's happiness. The smallest entities will come together with the infinite to form a whole that will at last present to us the true face of God.
Marc Lévesque M.A.

Like that quote?

 

[Prisme]

To Voodoo

If you would care to go and read the references I have conveniantly left for you, you could check the stats yourself.

I don't actually count the stuff Voodoo, I read it.

Thanks for saying nothing particularly useful.

 

[Prisme]

James R

You seem to enjoy taking short excerps of many post I write and putting them side by side without any coherance even when they are not directed at you! Poor sport.

Be it bounded, infinite or on its way back, the two main theories concerning the Univers and the Cosmos do not alienate God, they rather make him a part of it.
If you can quit quoting me and start explaining to me how God is impossible in every possible physical theory (since you seem to say you know more about physics than me)of the universe maybe I could start seeing you as someone that knows something rather than nothing.
---
Its funny you referred yourself to the LAWS OF CHEMISTRY without even talking about one single common law that would conclusively show that protein formation in the primitive atmosphere of the world would most likely have took place in another form than trial and error.
In addition, just saying "laws of chemistry" isn't saying much at all.

Repeating myself again, althought some chemical laws "permit" as you say certain combinations to take place, the protein cells abort themselves when inproperly coordinated. If you honestly believe that all it takes to make protein cells are the presence of the proprer gases around, Miller's experimentation will prove you wrong. that is why such research in 20 years has never advanced. Instead, they have searched to help DNA reconstruct itself... no creation here of protein cells that would show us directly how the first cells were made.. and even if we could do it, it would have to be in an unclosed environement that would not respect the all the primitve conditions of Earth.

In addtion, protein cells cannot form themselves without the presence of amonia. Amonia was shown to be absent in the primitive atmospheric climate of the Earth = no life possible.

Thank you and good night.

 

[Voodoo Child]

Miller critics on which my readings were based on:

Feb 1998, Earth magazine p.34
March 1998, National Geographic p.68
1975, Journal of American Chemical Society p.2964
The origin of species revisited, 1991 p.304

I'm sorry, I thought these were just regarding the Miller expt.
Any critique of my critique?
And could you possibly provide the journal numbers, authors?

And what do you mean by "protein cell"?

Its funny you referred yourself to the LAWS OF CHEMISTRY without even talking about one single common law that would conclusively show that protein formation in the primitive atmosphere of the world would most likely have took place in another form than trial and error.

You mean like disulphide bonds? Or the forces that form them?

 

[Raithere]

Re: Sorry to burst your bubble Raithere

Originally posted by Prisme
Laws of physics are supernatural!!!!

Um... No.

supernatural adj.
1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.

physics n.
1. The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.
2. Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws: the physics of supersonic flight.

Do you ever ask yourselves where and how those "certain forces" became to be?

Certainly. It's a rather large and exciting field of physics. Of course, the ideas are largely hypothetical thus far.

When you say "laws of physics" in the sense that you are using it, it is no different form mine except that the meanning in value has changed. In any case, they are both subjective value judgements.

No. I'm speaking of the empirically proven "rules" by which this Universe seems to operate. While I don't assert that any particular model is absolutely correct I do assert that the effects of these forces and the relationships between them are correctly defined.

If they are not contingent, God can be said to the clock maker of their necessity.
If they are contingent, which Einstein has shown in his theories concerning time, space and infinity, then god becomes what makes life possible in an impossible universe.

God can be said to be anything you like. What does not follow is that this makes God logically necessary. I also fail to see where you have demonstrated that the Universe is impossible without God.

Then God is what holds gravity and its laws in place.

The God of the Gaps. Very nice.

Must I always draw a topographic map to explain everything? All amino acids that do not align themselves in proper order eventually corrupt, but they do begin a process of combination before they are formed an complete. you have not said anything that contradicts what I have written. You do not seem to have grasped what I was saying.

No, I understand the theory quite well, thank you. And I need not refute it. There are alternative hypotheses that are not dependent upon amino acids floating free in the oceans for long periods of time. n fact, Abiogenesis has pretty much discarded such a premise.

Well when those "hypothesis" will be founded, we'll talk about them.

They are in various stages of development and proofing. How about Microspheres (liposomes) or clay-matrix development?

Did you heir? A research just showed that the more ice-cream we sell, the more drownings they are in summer... geez.

More murders too. Correlation does not imply causality. What's your point?

So when you want to refute the fact that Miller's experiment is disregarded all you have to say is no?

You haven't provided any evidence that it has been, so what is there to refute? What is under contention is that the chemicals used by Miller correctly reflect the conditions of the prebiotic Earth. This does not mean that the results are entirely disregarded or that the experiment is not a profound discovery, important to Abiogenesis. Misrepresentation does not behoove you; it only makes your intent rather obvious and your argument lame.

Man I should use your technique more often. And if it wouldn't kill you, please leave references about what the *** you are refering about and in what journal did you come up with the "No's" you like to place around without saying anything structured and verifiable
...
Yeah... bravo, you sure showed me. I can peddle complicated words too Raithere:

Sorry, I had assumed that someone with such a decided opinion of Abiogenesis would have at least a working knowledge of the primary terms and hypotheses of that science. Apparently you have discredited an entire realm of investigation without even understanding what it is that is being investigated.

Here's a quick outline:

Macromolecules Evolve and Interact (p. 517)
a. Three major hypotheses on origin of life:

i. RNA-first Hypothesis:
only macromolecule RNA (ribonucleic acid) needed to progress to formation of first cell(s).
arose with discovery of ribozymes (RNA enzymes) that function in coding life processes and as proteins.
since some viruses use RNA genes, first genes could have been RNA.
first enzymes would be ribozymes also functioning as enzymes.
proponents call this an "RNA world."
ii. Protein-first Hypothesis
Sidney Fox showed that amino acids polymerize abiotically when exposed to dry heat.
proteinoids are small polypeptides with catalytic properties and form.
microspheres form when proteinoids are returned to water; have properties of cells.
hypothesis assumes enzymes came before DNA genes; protein enzymes are needed for DNA replication.
iii. Clay Hypothesis
Graham Cairns-Smith believes clay assists in polymerization of proteins and nucleic acids at the same time.
clay attracts small organic molecules; iron and zinc are inorganic catalysts for polypeptide formation.
RNA nucleotides and amino acids associate in such a way that polypeptides were ordered by and helped synthesize RNA; both polypeptides and RNA arise at same time.

http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/maderinquiry/lecture/lecture27.html

There are also exobiology hypotheses and extreme environments hypotheses.

More links for you:
http://exobiology.nasa.gov/ssx/biomod/papers990823/blois.20/blois.html
http://www.plluisi.org/grl_res_index.html
http://www.str.com.br/English/Scientia/life.htm

Let me know when you're conversant with the primary concepts and we can continue from there.

~Raithere

 

[Prisme]

Run away!!! Run away!!!

Raithere, do you ever bother to read your own stuff?

At one point you say:

Physics is an exciting fiels but most theories are "largely hypothetical thus far"

And then you go on to say:
I speak of the empirically proven rules in which the universe operates.

So which one are they??


In addition to your kind act of going to the dictionnary to sort every thing out, you defined supernatural as something that is "is outside of nature".
Did anybody see something outside of nature? As Hegel said:
"There is nothing new under the sun". He means that all there is in the world is never coming out of another world into ours. Everything, including myth making, is part of this world, or to the very least: part of humans that are part of this world.
To conclude, it is contradictory to say that natural phenomenon is what is only inside of nature, for we have never actually seen the outside of nature.
(Always thought that the dictionnary was full of philosophical problems.)

But again my critic stands:

What the dictionnay qualifies as Natural phenomenon and non-Natural phenomenon (or in this case supra-natural phenomenon)is purely subjective as to the approach that is taken when analysing those phenomenons.
Physics chose to appropriate itself of certain phenomenons that are still yet to be fully seezed... and suddenly it becomes science? Hardly my friend.

If the only thing that you are willing to take into account is the metrical value of events, you will never fully arrive to grasp the entirety of phenomenons: what are their first cause? or their conditions of being that make them be rather than not be.

I suggest you read Hume and Popper on : the problem of Induction.
Since Hume, empirical knowledge has been shown that it will never suffice in itself to validate our knowledge.

--------

I never said that the universe was impossible without God, I said that a infinite universe is impossible to live in:
-A perpetual changing of the conditions in the universe (since it is expanding, stretching, adding new componants to the totality that it represents)would not allow stability.

ex: (1+3+4+5)= 13
If this equasion keeps adding new variables
(1+3+4+5.. +1)= 14

Then the Universe balance would not be equivalent to what it used to be when it was 13. It is more probable that such continuous changes would eventually unbalance the relative stability that we enjoy now.

In such an impossible world, God would be to me what makes life possible.
---------------

The only reason I typed:

"God is what holds the laws together" is because you inscinuated that the laws were self suffiscient(sounds almost supernatural doesn't it?). I say to that: God represents to me what makes the laws possible.

This is not a God of gaps.
for he doesn't compensate for unknown facts, he is what makes the conditions possible for the facts to exist.
---------------

As always, you talk of existing alternative hypothesis and never bother to express them. How can I take you more seriously than a bible quoter?

---------------

My point with the ice cream was that you are doing the same reasoning:

Alternative theories on their way = don't have to refute my argument
(causes)
No cause effect there, but that's what your saying to me.
---------------

Again! I must repeat what I have already said:

I left you the references that I used, if you don't go and read them it's your problem not mine. I even left the damn pages!!! What do you want more!?!?
As for your behavior, it is more in concordance with high-schoolers that don't even bother to leave a single reference that can be easily searched for.

---------------

I got to the end of your post and you have still not managed to give me anything of value to our conversation:

You talk about empirical facts and all you give me are hypothesis????
IS THIS A JOKE???

-"Maybe" first genes could have been RNA?
-Enzymes and DNA (just goes to show Miller's attempt having failed, scientists are now looking at DNA rather than strict amino acids reproduction... that is of course, never in a primitive atmospheric state. They are only doing this a closed environement and with a God's hand approach- meanning they have access to every cell and chemical imaginable)
-"Believes" that Clay polimerization or proteins?

What the hell is this church? or empirical facts?

----

Also to all atheists:

As always, I haven't learned anything about the Universe or the state of man while talking to you guys. All I see is a lot of abusive quotting and hypothesis that have yet to yield anything substantiated... something that is apparantly important to you guys when it comes to religion, but not science.

Judgement of values as always,

Prisme

P.S.
I'm giving you one more chance to show me something tangible in this world that science has proven that should compell me to cease to believe in A God not the gods of religious groups.
If I don't get anything soon, my work with you self-learned atheists will be done.

P.S.S. Sorry Raithere internet sites are not yet recognized as scientific for there is too little control on the crap that is put out there... any good university will tell you that.

 

[Prisme]

Voodoo

-If you can't type in a library computer the title, year and month of a magazine and manage to find it... your intellect will not allow you to find them with any additional information.

And yes the first 3 are directly linked to Miller.

-Did you just open a physical science dictionnary and took the 2 words your finger fell on or were you going somwhere with those two concepts?

Peace

 

[TBD]

Agnostic vs Atheist

The debate is really only agnostic vs atheist, because the only arguments I've seen for theists are "Try not to think about it and just believe." That sounds a lot like doublethink (from the book 1984 by George Orwell). This may be an oversimplification, but it is still the underlying fact in every debate.

The truth, as I see it, currently lies somewhere between agnostic and atheist. Is it possible to prove that a god exists or not? Probably not, but we can make it a whole lot less likely by tracing the origins of religion on Earth. Allow me to explain.

In more than a few posts, here and abroad, I have used a new argument - at least for me - involing a creation of my own supernatural being, The Monkey, and his son MonkeyMan (an offshoot from god and jesus, in case you didn't notice). Now, such a being cannot currently be disproven, but since we all know for a fact that I created the concept, it is obviously false. What if 12 or 13 people created the concept, with no further proof? Still false.

How does this apply to the debate? Well, it proves that just as it "doesn't take a lot of brains to be an atheist," it takes even less to create your own supernatural being and recruit others to your cause. Why is this likely? Look at Christianity. If it is truly a divine religion, then why must it appeal to our basic human vices?

"Aren't you afraid of hell?" - Appeals to fear, which is instinctive. A divine religion wouldn't have to use fear as motiviation, because it would be inherantly true and there would be no need for physical motivation. Why hasn't this point been argued more often? After all, if the supernatural is the underlying motivation, why double it through human vices? Isn't that superfluous?

"Don't you want to go to heaven?" - Greed. Desire for rewards that are greater than what you have given to the world. See above argument.

"Don't you hate the devil?" - Anger, placing the blame for all that is wrong with the world onto the shoulders of a single entity. If you "hate the devil," this generally means you want to counteract him with doing good. If it was truly the real religion, it would have no need to recruit followers in this fashion, because through its divine influence it would gain followers automatically (and this is how many people claim the first disciples began to follow jesus, not through vices - although I have yet to see convincing empirical evidence of the mortal jesus's existance).

Anyone has to admit that it would be nice to have the true religion appeal to so many of our natural human vices, while at the same time calling them evil (3 of the 7 deadly sins, I might add). The truth is that this is just contradictory and was obviously conceived by humans. Since the religion has its roots in the words a humans, whose words are quite fallible, it very much decreases the likelihood of any kind of god existing other than in the minds of the people.

"Very few people genuinely believe in god from their own free will, they were simply raised to believe in the social benefits of saying that there is a god. Ignorance in numbers is a powerful weapon. Many will die because of it."

The true philosopher is agnostic (no absolutes). If you like to argue, go ahead and be atheist (good luck proving it). If you want the social benefits, you can be Christian ("You can't disprove it! Neener neener" x 5 billion).

Let me reassert that I take no offense to christian debate, because I've heard it all before, and it remains unconvincing. Just as christians seem hell-bent (pun intended) on spreading their faith, I am determined to limit their numbers so the entire world is not enveloped in blind ignorance and scientific standstill. We've all seen what happens when you put the bible in the hands of the authorities.

 

[Prisme]

TBD

Althought I agree with you that atheism can easily defeat any religious movement... but I would like for you to elaborate on the following:

Please explain to me how Atheism is not, in itself a leap of faith, since nobody has ever proven that -A God- (not the illogical christian and other church gods) could not exist.

Prisme

P.S.
I do not consider agnosticism a true position towards a problem for not knowing asserts nothing and is thus neither true nor false. Agnostics could easily decide to "convert" to any side since they have no argument to themselves. True philosophers are those that progress our knowledge by forcing us to think in a different way, not forcing us to believe that we know nothing.

 

[TBD]

Re: TBD

Originally posted by Prisme
Please explain to me how Atheism is not, in tiself a leap of faith, since nobody has ever proven that -A God- (not the illogical christian and other church gods) could not exist.

Prisme

P.S.
I do not consider agnosticism a true position towards a problem for not knowing asserts nothing and is thus neither true nor false. Agnostics could easily decide to "convert" to any side since they have no argument to themselves.

I never said atheism wasn't a leap of faith - it's just as much a leap of faith as theism. And since it defines absolutes, it cannot be philosophically accepted, just as theism cannot. Both sides are completely equal in that they are created by humans in order to explain what we cannot any other way. The fact that there are so many belief systems could be considered evidence that there is no correct one, but that's just speculation.

If you don't consider agnosticism a position, then that is your opinion. I consider it the only true religion, because we will probably never know (note: PROBABLY) if there is or is not a god. But what is the problem? Is knowing the truth of our origins, something beyond our comprehension, really vital to our immediate existance? Attempting to find out is only a waste of resources and human lives (thanks to theistic extremists).

Any agnostic that would easily convert to either side was never a true agnostic. They tarnish the name of philosophy in doing so and represent flawed logical arguments within themselves. Although I've never actually seen it happen, have you?

 

[TBD]

Re: TBD

Originally posted by Prisme
True philosophers are those that progress our knowledge by forcing us to think in a different way, not forcing us to believe that we know nothing.

Forcing someone to think in a different way? That sounds more like a theistic worldview than a generalization of philosophy :bugeye:

 

[Raithere]

Re: Raithere!!!!

Originally posted by Prisme
Why must you always dissect everything other people say?
Let go of the quote button and say something logical for yourself!

Have you nothing to say personally about the world and what you think other than to perpetually trying to discredit what others say?

If you look through the history of my posts I do indeed post my own opinions and ideas. In fact, I have railed against the fact that we're so often mired in rather simplistic arguments and explanations of things. The issue of the existence God, I find to be tertiary to so many of the issues here. Whether God exists is neither provable nor disprovable, yet we get locked into these death matches over this issue and the important ideas and exploration of these ideas fall by the wayside.

So I ask you; what does it really matter if God created life or if it is explicable through the laws of physics? Is the scientific investigation of the world somehow made extraneous to human concerns or falsified by the assertions of creationism? Should we abandon science and philosophy because the ultimate answer is always God?

Conversely, if it was proven that it was likely that life could have originated through natural processes would God or the concepts of God and spirituality somehow be invalidated or made extraneous to the human condition?

In brief I find such small and fragile conceptions of God and truth to be inherently untrue. God, if it exists, must be much more than can be denied by a simple empirical fact or defined through a single book or set of doctrine. Yet it seems that that is exactly the state of "faith" that is most prevalent. (sheesh, I'm starting to sound like Tiassa )

So in stride the creationists and the IDers and, rather than offering a plausible hypothesis that might invite discussion, they concern themselves primarily with attempting to discredit science. They usually make quite a mess of it; their arguments are full of errors, assumptions, and misleading snippets. Somehow, they have come to perceive science not as the honest human pursuit of empirical discovery that it is but as some sort of religious aggressor attempting to take God to task. It is this attitude that I set myself against on occasion.

~Raithere

 

[TBD]

Bravo.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Re: Re: Raithere!!!!

Originally posted by Raithere
Somehow, they have come to perceive science ... as some sort of religious aggressor attempting to take God to task.

Perhaps best seen as the threatened territorialism of the retreating defenders of the God-of-the-Gaps?

 

[Voodoo Child]

If you can't type in a library computer the title, year and month of a magazine and manage to find it... your intellect will not allow you to find them with any additional information.

No biggee, it is just hard to find something from page number alone and standard convention to list number and author.

http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter11_1.php

Actually has the calculations you refer to( along with all your tired arguments). They calculate the probability of amino acids randomly forming proteins from equal amounts of 500 types of left and right handed amino acids and only conduct one trial. These calculations are not found in the references you gave me at all, and I'm not surprised, because they really, really suck. This has the odor of futility about it, so I give up.

 

[Raithere]

Re: Run away!!! Run away!!!

Originally posted by Prisme
Raithere, do you ever bother to read your own stuff?

Let's take another look:

Prisme: Do you ever ask yourselves where and how those "certain forces" became to be?
Raithere: Certainly. It's a rather large and exciting field of physics. Of course, the ideas are largely hypothetical thus far.

Prisme: When you say "laws of physics" in the sense that you are using it, it is no different form mine except that the meanning in value has changed. In any case, they are both subjective value judgements.
Raithere: No. I'm speaking of the empirically proven "rules" by which this Universe seems to operate. While I don't assert that any particular model is absolutely correct I do assert that the effects of these forces and the relationships between them are correctly defined.

As you should be able to discern, in the first case I was speaking as to the origins of the forces and in the second case I was referring to the forces themselves and the laws that describe their interaction. It is in no way contradictory to assert that something is known but it's origins are not.

In addition to your kind act of going to the dictionnary to sort every thing out, you defined supernatural as something that is "is outside of nature".

I didn't define it, I just picked up Webster's... blame him. BTW, what would you define supernatural to mean?

To conclude, it is contradictory to say that natural phenomenon is what is only inside of nature, for we have never actually seen the outside of nature.

Again, I am confused then as to what you think the difference is between natural and supernatural.

What the dictionnay qualifies as Natural phenomenon and non-Natural phenomenon (or in this case supra-natural phenomenon)is purely subjective as to the approach that is taken when analysing those phenomenons.

Not at all; a supernatural phenomena would be one that was proven not to be caused by natural forces.

Physics chose to appropriate itself of certain phenomenons that are still yet to be fully seezed... and suddenly it becomes science?

What are you talking about? Science explores how and why things happen... this applies to any phenomena. Thus far, however, there has been no evidence of anything supernatural going on at all.

If the only thing that you are willing to take into account is the metrical value of events, you will never fully arrive to grasp the entirety of phenomenons: what are their first cause? or their conditions of being that make them be rather than not be.

I'd say that science is doing a rather good job of this actually. We've come to understand many things through observation and measument. Now, of course, when you're speaking about the entirety of existence, well it hard to observe and measure everything... particularly from within. So we rely on various mathematics and hypotheses and do what we can to evince them. God, in this context, is simply one more hypotheses with no more evidence than any other and with a rather less stable foundation.

I suggest you read Hume and Popper on : the problem of Induction.
Since Hume, empirical knowledge has been shown that it will never suffice in itself to validate our knowledge.

Ugh. I have read Hume. Do you really want to get into an argument regarding infinite recursion? We can always turn the argument around and show that there can be no justified belief regarding the past. If you like, we can toss in Descartes too and state that nothing can be known except doubt and that there is something that doubts.

I never said that the universe was impossible without God, I said that a infinite universe is impossible to live in:
-A perpetual changing of the conditions in the universe (since it is expanding, stretching, adding new componants to the totality that it represents)would not allow stability.
...
Then the Universe balance would not be equivalent to what it used to be when it was 13. It is more probable that such continuous changes would eventually unbalance the relative stability that we enjoy now.

And you're basing your assessment of probability upon what, exactly? You're asserting here, I think, that in an expanding Universe the laws of physics would be unstable. Upon what are you basing that assertion?

In such an impossible world, God would be to me what makes life possible.

Please evince this.

"God is what holds the laws together" is because you inscinuated that the laws were self suffiscient(sounds almost supernatural doesn't it?).

I did more than insinuate. It is a plausible hypothesis that the forces that occasioned the beginning of the Universe are themselves eternal.

I say to that: God represents to me what makes the laws possible.

Actually, I have no problem with that, though I do wonder what can be asserted beyond it.

As always, you talk of existing alternative hypothesis and never bother to express them. How can I take you more seriously than a bible quoter?

In debate it is generally assumed that both parties are conversant with the relevant topics. I'm not referencing obscure data or specific treatments of a hypothesis but referring to general and rather broad areas of investigation. Considering that you have, apparently, already dismissed all of these areas of research I figured that you would have at least some understanding of the underlying hypotheses and evidence.

My point with the ice cream was that you are doing the same reasoning:
Alternative theories on their way = don't have to refute my argument
No cause effect there, but that's what your saying to me.

What argument? All I've seen so far from you is an attempt to discredit science. I've seen nothing to support your conjecture of life being miracled into existence.

I left you the references that I used, if you don't go and read them it's your problem not mine. I even left the damn pages!!! What do you want more!?!?

Actually, yes; I do not have the time to run to the library to search for this so it would be appreciated if you would give the exact reference (in context) that states that the Miller experiments have been "totally disregarded by the scientific community" because in all my reading the most I have ever found towards this statement is that the initial conditions that Miller based his experiment upon are not considered today to be truly representative of the state of the prebiotic Earth.

You talk about empirical facts and all you give me are hypothesis????
IS THIS A JOKE???

No, this is how science works. Obviously, we cannot travel back in time to directly observe the genesis of life on Earth. Thus we must attempt to infer what those conditions were and then hypothesize as to how life might originate under those conditions. All that has been proven thus far is that certain organic and inorganic "precursors" for life can be generated in natural conditions. But even if we manage to prove that life can evolve from this we still will not have proven that this is the way it did happen; not without more evidence.

Of course, what you consistently ignore is that there is no evidence what-so-ever to support the creationist hypothesis. Your argument, in its entirety, is simply "you can't prove Abiogenesis so God must have created life". Which is not even a valid logical argument.

What the hell is this church? or empirical facts?

Please then, show me some empirical facts regarding the origin of life via God.

As always, I haven't learned anything about the Universe or the state of man while talking to you guys.

One cannot learn if one is unwilling to listen.

All I see is a lot of abusive quotting and hypothesis that have yet to yield anything substantiated... something that is apparantly important to you guys when it comes to religion, but not science.

Sarcastic, probably, but I have not been abusive. And I did provide substantiation upon request (see below).

I'm giving you one more chance to show me something tangible in this world that science has proven that should compell me to cease to believe in A God not the gods of religious groups.

Whatever gave you the idea that I was attempting to "compel you to cease to believe in A God"?

If I don't get anything soon, my work with you self-learned atheists will be done.

Frankly, based on what you've posted so far it will be a very small loss.

Sorry Raithere internet sites are not yet recognized as scientific for there is too little control on the crap that is put out there... any good university will tell you that.

I am not quoting from "Bob's web site", I am careful in my selections, two of the four references were originally from published works and the other two are from research sites.

Let's take a look at my references why don't we:

Inquiry Into Life - by Sylvia Mader - 1997 • 816 pages (approx.) • ISBN 0-697-34330-8 (hardcover) • ISBN 0-697-34329-4 (paperback)
http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/m.../lecture27.html

"Models of protocellular structures, functions and evolution" by Andrew Pohorille and Michael H. New, which is fully referenced and is online under the "Biomolecular and Cellular Modeling Program" site at Nasa's web-site.
http://exobiology.nasa.gov/ssx/biom...s.20/blois.html

An ETH Zurich (University) research site on supramolecular chemistry - Accreditation of the various researchers is given in the relevant articles, I did not refrence any specifically.
http://www.plluisi.org/grl_res_index.html

A fully referenced article that appeared in February, March and April 1989, American Atheist Magazine
http://www.str.com.br/English/Scientia/life.htm

Next time why don't you actually check my references before attempting to dismiss them.

And BTW, simply declaring that your statements are based upon a few magazine articles is not even proper for a research paper, much less a scientific publication. You gave no quotations, nor did you refrence any of your data. Any good University will tell you that.

~Raithere

 

[Prisme]

Congratulations!!

In brief I find such small and fragile conceptions of God and truth to be inherently untrue. God, if it exists, must be much more than can be denied by a simple empirical fact or defined through a single book or set of doctrine. Yet it seems that that is exactly the state of "faith" that is most prevalent. (sheesh, I'm starting to sound like Tiassa )

Congrats Raithere,

You finally said something that came from your own noggen. I have definite proof I am not speaking to a highly evolved automated critic program.

It is comforting to see that your position takes a more moderate tone when you are not busy attacking every statement others make. You seem more... concilient to the unknown and the possibility of error.

Finally, your 'personal finding' that the concepts of God and truth are inherently untrue.. finally allows us to see that all I was saying all along was true: atheism is a value judgement.

C'ya.

 

[spuriousmonkey]

Re: Congratulations!!

Originally posted by Prisme

Finally, your 'personal finding' that the concepts of God and truth are inherently untrue.. finally allows us to see that all I was saying all along was true: atheism is a value judgement.

C'ya.

but do atheist claim to know the truth? I don't.

 

[Prisme]

Good bye to Raithere

I have read your last post and I thought it was funny that most of your replies to certain of my quotes were not applicable to the past contexts they were originally used for... thats why you should let go of the quote button and start to read things in their whole... not in their atomist state.

You are a challenging spirit... but one that needs to work on better seezing what others are saying.

Good bye