A Few "Simple" Questions Regarding Abiogenesis/Darwinian Evolution

jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
A Few "Simple" Questions Regarding Abiogenesis/Darwinian Evolution

This is for everyone who thinks all biological organisms can be explained by naturalistic mechanisms. When I use the word "evolution" in this thread, I am referring to darwinian evolution (common ancestry via random mutations and natural selection).

1. Do you consider evolution to be proven scientifically?
2. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate from inorganic matter just by chemistry without intelligent design?
3. How did the DNA code originate?
4. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist?
5. Why is natural selection taught as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life?
6. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate?
7. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed?
8. How did multi-cellular life originate?
9. How did sex originate?
10. Why are the (expected) millions of transitional fossils missing?
11. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years?
12. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality?
13. Why do you reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Jackspell renounces christianity

jackspell wrote:

absolutely worthless shit so his god removed it from this post because it was embarrassing. don't bother trying to find out what it was because it will only confuse you and cause puss filled boils to grow on your brain

 

Then start renouncing your worthless, mythological god...

http://www.mathematics.bigparadox.com/water-s.asp

http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/at/Atomic_mass_unit

http://neohumanism.org/m/mo/molecular_mass.html

http://neohumanism.org/a/at/atomic_mass_unit.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080904104317AANiue7

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-275640.html

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=738584

http://www.flickr.com/photos/snapeverything/3404197559/

There are dozens of other websites all containing the same equations and you might as well quit lying. I don't believe you calculated any of this stuff on your own. You positively cut and pasted it with out reviewing. Sure you might have mingled a few of your own words in here and there, but basically you googled "how many sub atomic particles in a cup of water" the cut and pasted. Did you specify distilled water or regular tap water? Doubled distilled water or Deionized water? doh!

If you are an engineer then it means squat when it comes to physics and quantum mechanics. Engineers are the noble semi-skilled laborers or the oompa-loompas of science. What? You know math as an engineer? MUHAHAHAHA What? Calculus? Calculus II? Intro to Ordinary Differential Equations? Ooooooh. Big scary math major you are!

You neglect all the facts being presented to you because you are lying to yourself. You want to keep your dream alive and not give up, but in reality you already have quit. Your attempt to prove your god with logic has betrayed you. You don't have any faith in your god so you are out on these forums trying to convince yourself and others that your god is real.

The truth is that you are one step away from being a cult leader if you had any charisma. You sit at your computer and type away, each day, all those lies about your mythological god and how powerful and mighty it is; ooooh nooooo, I'm going to go to hell because you believe in talking snakes, talking burning bushes, talking donkeys, virgin births and zombies. LOL. You stooge. Those stories have been passed around century after century by lesser and more ignorant humans than even you.

You are so afraid of dying that you believe a creator created you just so you can worship it and make it feel special? needed? Your sole purpose in life is to accept a person who lived over 2500 years ago as your savior so that you don't go to another mythical place called hell, which didn't even exist in early christanity (and neither did its "landlord", both of which are made up mythical stories older than the religions their-selves).

As for the rest of your posts, phttthttt!! worthless stuff. You are still ignoring all the factual evidence which was provided to you and since you are looking for only the end result to be fulfilled then you get stuck trying to nitpick your equation to fit the answer. You really only have myths and folklore's which really is sad because I'd like to see you succeed at more than being a ostrich with the head stuck in the sand. Sure you cut and paste tid bits of scientific facts, but that doesn't make your god more real.

BTW - you still haven't prove the sub-atomic particle question because you didn't really calculate anything. And yes, temperature and pressure does make a difference and this is the reason why you are not only wrong, but proving that you cut and pasted all your information. If you were a true mathematician then you could have simply worked it all out in a mathematical equation. The reason why you didn't is because you don't know shit about math other than what you read off the web.

Even if you could post a rational, original thought or equation you still wouldn't prove that your god existed. All I or any one else needs to do is substitute the word "god", "allah", "jehovah", "yahweh" or "creator" with any other "god" and blamo! there goes your fallacy up in smoke thus proving that your god and all gods never have exited.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10339
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
Woot! Only took a

Woot! Only took a week.

jackspell wrote:
1

1: See all scientific discovery in the last 500 years for a complete refutation.

2: Pay attention Mr. know-it-all. Your question is irrelevant, because organic matter was involved in the formation of life. Contrary to your belief, life is not required for organic matter to exist. And organic matter pervades the universe.

3: Cool.

4: Clearly this subject is currently beyond your capacity to understand. That's ok, anyone who reads our discussion will be free to look things up and confirm your ignorance. Even you!

5: The scientific community did that, not me. All I did was read a bunch of studies and experiments, and do a few experiments of my own.
Give it another decade, and the forces defining evolution will become even more varied and accurate than they are today.
Ironically, the theist arguments against won't have changed at all.

I thought there were 7 more points...

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Woot! Only took

Vastet wrote:
Woot! Only took a week.
jackspell wrote:
1

1: See all scientific discovery in the last 500 years for a complete refutation.

2: Pay attention Mr. know-it-all. Your question is irrelevant, because organic matter was involved in the formation of life. Contrary to your belief, life is not required for organic matter to exist. And organic matter pervades the universe.

3: Cool.

4: Clearly this subject is currently beyond your capacity to understand. That's ok, anyone who reads our discussion will be free to look things up and confirm your ignorance. Even you!

5: The scientific community did that, not me. All I did was read a bunch of studies and experiments, and do a few experiments of my own. Give it another decade, and the forces defining evolution will become even more varied and accurate than they are today. Ironically, the theist arguments against won't have changed at all.

I thought there were 7 more points...

 

See... he nitpicks... I answered his lotto question and yet no response from him.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: ....I will

jackspell wrote:


 ....I will give my OPINION, about how God's mechanism for creation works.
                                       Doesn't sound too reassuring if one was expecting evidence which supposedly is the basis for your vigorous defense.             
jackspell wrote:
I do not claim to fully comprehend God, or any of the  mechanisms for exercising His will.
                                  Which actually puts you on the same ground as scientists in regard to their own allegedly implausible naturalistic theories            
jackspell wrote:
Although, I do believe the act of Him creating, parallels our own exertion of will.  And in this context, I find the idea of God to be extremely plausible, even for the skeptics.
                                            Most religious people feel the same way.  Why is this not a surprise ?            
jackspell wrote:
Our observable universe is 93 billion light-years, and rapidly getting larger with every passing second.  Maybe our world is like the "Men in Black" movies perception; we are quantum specks in an enormous God's world.  In that case, if we are the relative observer of God, we are simply too far away for the light from his position to reach us.  Einstein was able to prove through Special Relativity, that time slowed down as you approach the speed of light.  Since time is inversely proportional to velocity, perhaps velocity could be relative to the size of the observer, in which case the light from our galaxy could be perceived with a higher velocity to an enormous God, enabling Him to view our planet in real time.  This would explain how he could exist outside of our universe.   At least, until our universe has existed long enough for the visible light to have sufficient time to reach us.
                      Do you actually have any evidence with which to test or support  "maybe" and "perhaps"   ?  Do you have anything that allows you to legitimately claim that you have drawn closer to a more viable explanation than is being offered by the naturalistic explanations that you reject ?            
jackspell wrote:
Maybe creation is analogous to lighting a firecracker.  Imagine beings small enough to exist in a world the size of a firecracker that would, upon exploding, would meet no other unbalanced force.  According to Newton's first law of motion, it would follow that it's contents would expand from the point of origin forever.  Since we light firecrackers and move away before detonation, the universe inside the firecracker wouldn't reach us instantaneously.  Just as our observable universe may have not reached God yet.  Maybe creation like the lighting of a fuse.
         Lots more "maybe".  So far we aren't moving past that verbal qualifier.  You're not actually building a case here and you are certainly not offering anything that gives you a reason to trot out your unsubstantiated creation theories with such a sense of victory and ridicule towards our own natural theories.  I was hoping that you could back up your theories with something much less speculative             
jackspell wrote:
What if He set all the initial conditions that govern the laws of physics as we know them, in a manner similar to someone packing a firecracker with powder (matter) and chemicals (energy) that react to the lighting of a fuse?
              What ?  Now you're appealing to "the laws of physics" ?  ...when did you jump back over the line into natural phenomena ?   And much more importantly, how does one "set" all the initial conditions ?         
jackspell wrote:
Now, all this is PURE SPECULATION, as I have never claimed to have all the answers.
         You don't have any answers.  Just lots of metaphors mixed in with "maybe".  And offering "PURE SPECULATION" certainly doesn't give you an advantage over the alternative theory that has earned such scorn from you.          
jackspell wrote:
But it is what popped into my head as I was typing.
               Is that another metaphor for how God creates ?             
jackspell wrote:
Furthermore, I offer a challenge to anyone who wants to reply by telling me how irrational and illogical all this is.
                                  Well first of all you still haven't proven that "God" actually exists.              
jackspell wrote:
Go ahead and criticize it, but don't be an intellectual coward and not also tell me how you believe everything came to be.
   You employ statistical probability to disparage our naturalistic theory.  What is the statistical probability that all of your "maybe" is actually the truth behind these admittedly difficult questions ?   Maybe is just another way of guessing ( and in your case guessing motivated by religious devotion ).    So God allegedly interfaces with our reality from somewhere within his reality.  And the evidence so far is a big pile of "maybe" ?  

  I was hoping that you could provide a more viable explanation than what you offered here  .....but based upon the statistical probability of past encounters with creationists what were the odds of that happening ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

absolutely worthless shit so his god removed it from this post because it was embarrassing. don't bother trying to find out what it was because it will only confuse you and cause puss filled boils to grow on your brain

 

Then start renouncing your worthless, mythological god...

http://www.mathematics.bigparadox.com/water-s.asp

http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/at/Atomic_mass_unit

http://neohumanism.org/m/mo/molecular_mass.html

http://neohumanism.org/a/at/atomic_mass_unit.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080904104317AANiue7

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-275640.html

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=738584

http://www.flickr.com/photos/snapeverything/3404197559/

There are dozens of other websites all containing the same equations and you might as well quit lying. I don't believe you calculated any of this stuff on your own. You positively cut and pasted it with out reviewing. Sure you might have mingled a few of your own words in here and there, but basically you googled "how many sub atomic particles in a cup of water" the cut and pasted. Did you specify distilled water or regular tap water? Doubled distilled water or Deionized water? doh!

If you are an engineer then it means squat when it comes to physics and quantum mechanics. Engineers are the noble semi-skilled laborers or the oompa-loompas of science. What? You know math as an engineer? MUHAHAHAHA What? Calculus? Calculus II? Intro to Ordinary Differential Equations? Ooooooh. Big scary math major you are!

You neglect all the facts being presented to you because you are lying to yourself. You want to keep your dream alive and not give up, but in reality you already have quit. Your attempt to prove your god with logic has betrayed you. You don't have any faith in your god so you are out on these forums trying to convince yourself and others that your god is real.

The truth is that you are one step away from being a cult leader if you had any charisma. You sit at your computer and type away, each day, all those lies about your mythological god and how powerful and mighty it is; ooooh nooooo, I'm going to go to hell because you believe in talking snakes, talking burning bushes, talking donkeys, virgin births and zombies. LOL. You stooge. Those stories have been passed around century after century by lesser and more ignorant humans than even you.

You are so afraid of dying that you believe a creator created you just so you can worship it and make it feel special? needed? Your sole purpose in life is to accept a person who lived over 2500 years ago as your savior so that you don't go to another mythical place called hell, which didn't even exist in early christanity (and neither did its "landlord", both of which are made up mythical stories older than the religions their-selves).

As for the rest of your posts, phttthttt!! worthless stuff. You are still ignoring all the factual evidence which was provided to you and since you are looking for only the end result to be fulfilled then you get stuck trying to nitpick your equation to fit the answer. You really only have myths and folklore's which really is sad because I'd like to see you succeed at more than being a ostrich with the head stuck in the sand. Sure you cut and paste tid bits of scientific facts, but that doesn't make your god more real.

BTW - you still haven't prove the sub-atomic particle question because you didn't really calculate anything. And yes, temperature and pressure does make a difference and this is the reason why you are not only wrong, but proving that you cut and pasted all your information. If you were a true mathematician then you could have simply worked it all out in a mathematical equation. The reason why you didn't is because you don't know shit about math other than what you read off the web.

Even if you could post a rational, original thought or equation you still wouldn't prove that your god existed. All I or any one else needs to do is substitute the word "god", "allah", "jehovah", "yahweh" or "creator" with any other "god" and blamo! there goes your fallacy up in smoke thus proving that your god and all gods never have exited.

 

 

I LOVE IT! Another successful execution of Christian Apologetics! You see, contrary to your misconstrued assertion about me posting on this site to prove to myself that God exists, my intentions are to demonstrate to others, the truth that god exists.  The first and most important step, is to remove all the barriers that prevent someone from realizing this truth, such as the false claims of abiogenesis.  So basically, I just want to level the playing field for God, so that the evidence can be viewed without any false presuppositions.  And based on the undertones of your post, I'd say I have accomplished my objective.  Now, before you waste any more of your time with ad hominem laden replies, save it, because I already know that you are going to tell me how stupid and wrong that is.  I would never expect you to admit to my claims here and now.  But I've seen a common theme amongst those who make a serious effort to refute my arguments for God.  That is, their tone becomes childish, angry, and completely irrational, just as yours has.  Why? If I really am out of my mind and there is no truth to my claims, why get angry and make a post of that length that does nothing but attack me personally? Why are you even on here anyway, much less on here all the time? You sure do devout a lot of time and effort to make people believe in your non-belief.  Why? I don't believe Santa Clause exists.  But none of my time is spent on any websites that are devoted to proving that belief in Santa is irrational.  If people want to believe in Santa, I couldn't care less.  I got better things to do than spend time arguing with them.  So why do you spend a lot of your time arguing with theists? 

 

Anyway, really? I told you to post the link that I copied and pasted that paragraph from, and you post 8 of them? Really? It took 8 posts, in combination, for you feeble mind to THINK you have shown were I copied and pasted from for a single paragraph? HAHAHAHAHA!!! I think the icing on the cake is the fact that you are accusing me of copying and pasting THE SAME EQUATIONS! Are you really this slow? Did you think I had my own unit of measurement for volume, mass, density etc.? You claim there are dozens of other sites with the SAME equations? Good! That shows my calculations are correct! I appreciate you confirming them for me.  And are you really gonna compromise your intelligence by accusing me of stealing all this, when you failed to provide even ONE example of a calculation of the number of particles in a glass, compared to the number of glasses in the world ocean? That's sad.  You have my pity.  Regarding your frantic assertion that I failed because I didn't specify the type of water and also claimed temperature and pressure are negligible in this discussion, I offer you a challenge.  Since you are such a bigshot compared to my inferior education, why don't you give us a condition (temperature and pressure) in the world ocean that would make my calculations false? You are free to use any type of water in existence to help you.  I would think that you wouldn't resort to increasing the size of the glass to an unrealistic volume, but you never know what someone that is backed into a corner might do.  Lastly, even though I am STUPID and only know what I copy and paste off the internet, I am aware of a little thing called EVAPORATION.  So lets not forget to account for this in your calculation.  I'd hate to see you try to use a pressure so low or a temperature so high or a combination of the two that would make those water molecules in the ocean you are attempting to expand actually be liberated from the surface into the clouds. 

 

Another thing I find comical, is the accusations of me not understanding my own posts.  That I just blindly copy and paste.  For the sake of the argument, lets assume that is true.  Would someone care to explain then how I manage to get LUCKY enough to consistently post scientific information that is CORRECT? Must be an act of God.  I couldn't care less if anyone believes I understand this stuff.  That whole argument is a red herring.  The fact that it is true is what's relevant.  Finally, PAY ATTENTION TO THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD! I am not arguing about why the Christian God exists.  I am arguing the facts about naturalism, and why an Intelligent Designer is a viable option for the origin of life.  Could be any god, alien A.I. etc.  So lets stay on topic.  So man up big dog, and give us your calculation of realistic conditions that falsify my calculations.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Vastet

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Woot! Only took a week.
jackspell wrote:
1

1: See all scientific discovery in the last 500 years for a complete refutation.

2: Pay attention Mr. know-it-all. Your question is irrelevant, because organic matter was involved in the formation of life. Contrary to your belief, life is not required for organic matter to exist. And organic matter pervades the universe.

3: Cool.

4: Clearly this subject is currently beyond your capacity to understand. That's ok, anyone who reads our discussion will be free to look things up and confirm your ignorance. Even you!

5: The scientific community did that, not me. All I did was read a bunch of studies and experiments, and do a few experiments of my own. Give it another decade, and the forces defining evolution will become even more varied and accurate than they are today. Ironically, the theist arguments against won't have changed at all.

I thought there were 7 more points...

 

See... he nitpicks... I answered his lotto question and yet no response from him.

Really? I get 45 minutes to respond before you accuse me of nitpicking? Talk about reaching.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:I don't even

jackspell wrote:

I don't even need to read your reply.

You fail to prove anything. You are a walking fallacy.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Here is a conversation with

Here is a conversation with Jackspell:

 

jackspell wrote:

How many fingers am I holding behind my back?

 

average user wrote:

I don't know, this is an internet forum and I can't see you. Do you have a webcam? Maybe if I were watching you I might be able to tell by watching your facial expressions

 

jackspell wrote:

HAHAHA! I LOVE IT! YOU FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE MY QUESTION! YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND YOU ARE NOT WORTHY OF MY INTELLIGENCE

 

average user wrote:

Hmmmm, well I did answer your question, did you miss something, maybe you got your threads confused?

 

jackspell wrote:

HAHAHA! ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS! YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION! ANSWER MY LOTTO QUESTION AND YOU WILL SEE THE TRUTH!

 

average user wrote:

What lotto question? Did you have a second lotto question I already answer that previously?

 

jackspell wrote:

HAHAHAHA HOW MANY HAIRS DO I HAVE ON MY RIGHT BIG TOE? YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO ANSWER ME. YOU HAVE A PUNY BRAIN!

 

average user wrote:

HUH? What the fuck are you talking about, you switch subjects, don't acknowledge replies, skip conversations... do you need some Ritalin?

 

jackspell wrote:

WHAT IS THE EMPTY SPACE BETWEEN MY EARS? HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE LIGHT TO PASS THROUGH MY ASS AND EXIT MY PENIS! WHERE DOES MY DNA GO WHEN I MASTURBATE?

 

average user wrote:

WTF dude? I already answered your first set of questions and your entire logical process is a fallacy which I've already proved and you refused to answer. Please if you want to continue this conversation, respond to my first reply

 

jackspell wrote:

IF I WIN THE LOTTO WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN TO THE LOTTO TICKET? WILL I A) TURN IT IN? B) LOSE IT? C) GIVE IT TO A STRANGER? D) GOD WILL HANDLE THE SITUATION FOR ME?

 

average user wrote:

Look dude. If you are going to make stuff up as you go fine. Where did you get your information from? Are you cutting and pasting, it sure seems like it.  I guess you hand pick your replies and ignore ones you can't answer or ones which people answer correctly

 

 

jackspell wrote:

HAHAHA! I LOVE IT! YOU FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE MY QUESTION! YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND YOU ARE NOT WORTHY OF MY INTELLIGENCE

 

 

average user wrote:

Oh good grief! What is the person's malfunction? I've got better things to do with my life...

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is onlineOnline
Big laughs...

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Here is a conversation with Jackspell:

 

jackspell wrote:

How many fingers am I holding behind my back?

 

average user wrote:

I don't know, this is an internet forum and I can't see you. Do you have a webcam? Maybe if I were watching you I might be able to tell by watching your facial expressions

 

jackspell wrote:

HAHAHA! I LOVE IT! YOU FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE MY QUESTION! YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND YOU ARE NOT WORTHY OF MY INTELLIGENCE

 

average user wrote:

Hmmmm, well I did answer your question, did you miss something, maybe you got your threads confused?

 

jackspell wrote:

HAHAHA! ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS! YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION! ANSWER MY LOTTO QUESTION AND YOU WILL SEE THE TRUTH!

 

average user wrote:

What lotto question? Did you have a second lotto question I already answer that previously?

 

jackspell wrote:

HAHAHAHA HOW MANY HAIRS DO I HAVE ON MY RIGHT BIG TOE? YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO ANSWER ME. YOU HAVE A PUNY BRAIN!

 

average user wrote:

HUH? What the fuck are you talking about, you switch subjects, don't acknowledge replies, skip conversations... do you need some Ritalin?

 

jackspell wrote:

WHAT IS THE EMPTY SPACE BETWEEN MY EARS? HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE LIGHT TO PASS THROUGH MY ASS AND EXIT MY PENIS! WHERE DOES MY DNA GO WHEN I MASTURBATE?

 

average user wrote:

WTF dude? I already answered your first set of questions and your entire logical process is a fallacy which I've already proved and you refused to answer. Please if you want to continue this conversation, respond to my first reply

 

jackspell wrote:

IF I WIN THE LOTTO WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN TO THE LOTTO TICKET? WILL I A) TURN IT IN? B) LOSE IT? C) GIVE IT TO A STRANGER? D) GOD WILL HANDLE THE SITUATION FOR ME?

 

average user wrote:

Look dude. If you are going to make stuff up as you go fine. Where did you get your information from? Are you cutting and pasting, it sure seems like it.  I guess you hand pick your replies and ignore ones you can't answer or ones which people answer correctly

 

 

jackspell wrote:

HAHAHA! I LOVE IT! YOU FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE MY QUESTION! YOU ARE AN IDIOT AND YOU ARE NOT WORTHY OF MY INTELLIGENCE

 

 

average user wrote:

Oh good grief! What is the person's malfunction? I've got better things to do with my life...

 

 

Thanks for those, Dig. 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
 ProzacDeathWish

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

                                                                                             Please explain how the creation process actually works.

 

 

 


 
jackspell wrote:
...... I will give my OPINION, about how God's mechanism for creation works....( snip)....I do not claim to fully comprehend God, or any of the  mechanisms for exercising His will...( snip )...  Although, I do believe the act of Him creating, parallels our own exertion of will...( snip )...  How does that work? Well, the first thing that happens, is we must obtain a desire to do so.  We do this by making a choice.  Then, our will is exerted by our mental control of our bodies.  What brings about PHYSICAL effects, starts with our MENTAL exertion of free will, CHOICE.  In God's case, creation may have been similar.
  
jackspell wrote:
God is personal, and therefore makes the CHOICE to exercise His free will, thereby bringing about PHYSICAL EFFECTS,..
                                                                                 ...except with God, "free will" itself is the creative force, there is no other instrumentality.    
jackspell wrote:
                           ....just as we do.   
                                                Yes, I frequently mimic God's creative methods by simply willing something  into existence.   
jackspell wrote:
Now, all this is PURE SPECULATION, as I have never claimed to have all the answers.  But it is what popped into my head as I was typing.

 

 

   So, in other words not even jackspell actually knows how any of this supernatural creation process actually works and therefore cannot even offer a testable theory.  

Nevertheless God created the entire cosmos through the force of his will.   

God created Adam and Eve, fully formed, through the force of his will. 

God created all animal life through the force of his will.  

                                    

                                 And most importantly, any references to physical manifestations of this "creation" process are only as effects not causes.  

 

 

 Yes, God produced a natural universe, but unlike human creative processes, he need only will something into existence.   Being omnipotent has its advantages. God's creative methods are more akin to those of a mythical genie who simply "poofs" things into existence. 

 

Yes jackspell, that is a much more viable theory as to how the universe came to be.  Why does anything exist ?  Why God simply willed it into existence !

                                

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
          Sorry

 

         Sorry about the lack of vertical spacing between quotes.  I have tried repeatedly to put sufficient space between my text and jackspence's for ease of reading but it simply will not respond to my attempts.  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: Yes,

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 Yes, God produced a natural universe, but unlike human creative processes, he need only will something into existence.   Being omnipotent has its advantages. God's creative methods are more akin to those of a mythical genie who simply "poofs" things into existence. 

 

Yes jackspell, that is a much more viable theory as to how the universe came to be.  Why does anything exist ?  Why God simply willed it into existence !                             

 

Heya,

Jake won't talk to me, so I'll just make some comments.  Thank you for taking the time to respond to him, PDW.

I don't believe he has a PhD in anything, let alone engineering math.  He couldn't have got through a Bachelor's and retain that attitude.

I have given him three very good reasons why his lottery math is inappropriate for the problem, and he has not addressed any of them.

1. Natural selection works by keeping what works and discarding what doesn't.  That dramatically changes the odds and how you calculate the problem.

2. Natural selection is stochastic, not random.  That is, there are portions of the problem that are unvarying - such as the elements used to create organic molecules, or the chemical bonds shaped by the physics of the elements.

3. Proteins are not randomly created.  They are determined by the codons (groups of three of the four nucleotides).  There are only so many combinations of nucleotides possible.  Also, proteins come in varying sizes.  So the odds of  making the shortest is vastly different than the odds of making the longest.  And it isn't hard to make a longer protein, just keep adding more codons.  The shorter pieces that had a function, still have that function - and maybe the longer pieces can be used in other novel fashions.

So you see, Jackie has all the hallmarks of the person in the middle of Doxastic Closure.  He is also a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Saying someone is in one or both of those states is not meant to be insulting.  You have to realize you are there before you can do something about it.  We all have to struggle and watch ourselves because we are all susceptible.  Jackie will not see himself as being in this state, because that would be the first step to acknowledging that he really does know jack sh*t about the subject.  And he is so heavily invested in maintaining his beliefs.

Jackie needs to ask himself, "Am I willing to base my beliefs on evidence?  What kind of evidence would it take to change my beliefs?"  If he can not imagine ever basing his beliefs on evidence or any evidence that would change his beliefs, he will never listen to any of us or any anyone else for that matter who does not hold his beliefs.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Heya,Jake won't

cj wrote:

Heya,

Jake won't talk to me, so I'll just make some comments.  Thank you for taking the time to respond to him, PDW.

I don't believe he has a PhD in anything, let alone engineering math.  He couldn't have got through a Bachelor's and retain that attitude.

I have given him three very good reasons why his lottery math is inappropriate for the problem, and he has not addressed any of them.

1. Natural selection works by keeping what works and discarding what doesn't.  That dramatically changes the odds and how you calculate the problem.

2. Natural selection is stochastic, not random.  That is, there are portions of the problem that are unvarying - such as the elements used to create organic molecules, or the chemical bonds shaped by the physics of the elements.

3. Proteins are not randomly created.  They are determined by the codons (groups of three of the four nucleotides).  There are only so many combinations of nucleotides possible.  Also, proteins come in varying sizes.  So the odds of  making the shortest is vastly different than the odds of making the longest.  And it isn't hard to make a longer protein, just keep adding more codons.  The shorter pieces that had a function, still have that function - and maybe the longer pieces can be used in other novel fashions.

So you see, Jackie has all the hallmarks of the person in the middle of Doxastic Closure.  He is also a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Saying someone is in one or both of those states is not meant to be insulting.  You have to realize you are there before you can do something about it.  We all have to struggle and watch ourselves because we are all susceptible.  Jackie will not see himself as being in this state, because that would be the first step to acknowledging that he really does know jack sh*t about the subject.  And he is so heavily invested in maintaining his beliefs.

Jackie needs to ask himself, "Am I willing to base my beliefs on evidence?  What kind of evidence would it take to change my beliefs?"  If he can not imagine ever basing his beliefs on evidence or any evidence that would change his beliefs, he will never listen to any of us or any anyone else for that matter who does not hold his beliefs.

Good post. I agree.

When I've asked him to prove his equations he skips, ignores or posts messages which have nothing to do with my question.

I still believe he cuts and pastes all his information with out verifying. I even checked on one of his sources which was a "scientist" who is a creationist. I know? Isn't that an oxymoron?

He's off brooding and will most likely respond after he has copied enough information from other websites or books.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Good

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Good post. I agree.

When I've asked him to prove his equations he skips, ignores or posts messages which have nothing to do with my question.

I still believe he cuts and pastes all his information with out verifying. I even checked on one of his sources which was a "scientist" who is a creationist. I know? Isn't that an oxymoron?

He's off brooding and will most likely respond after he has copied enough information from other websites or books.

 

The more I learn, the more I know I don't know.  But I know enough to tell when the stuff Jackie and others like him post is a load of chicken manure. 

He has obviously vested a lot of energy in coming up with rationalizations for his beliefs.  It will be difficult for him to acknowledge that that energy was spent on nonsense.

Maybe if I had epileptic seizures in my right temporal lobe, I would start believing in something like god/s/dess.  Many people who have seizures there profess strong belief in same.  Otherwise, it is a waste of Jackie's time if he thinks he can convince me - and most likely many of us who post on this forum will be just as difficult to convince.

On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to continue to give him lessons in probability, biology and chemistry.  None of which are areas of my expertise, only areas of my hobby interests.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:digitalbeachbum

cj wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Good post. I agree.

When I've asked him to prove his equations he skips, ignores or posts messages which have nothing to do with my question.

I still believe he cuts and pastes all his information with out verifying. I even checked on one of his sources which was a "scientist" who is a creationist. I know? Isn't that an oxymoron?

He's off brooding and will most likely respond after he has copied enough information from other websites or books.

 

The more I learn, the more I know I don't know.  But I know enough to tell when the stuff Jackie and others like him post is a load of chicken manure. 

He has obviously vested a lot of energy in coming up with rationalizations for his beliefs.  It will be difficult for him to acknowledge that that energy was spent on nonsense.

Maybe if I had epileptic seizures in my right temporal lobe, I would start believing in something like god/s/dess.  Many people who have seizures there profess strong belief in same.  Otherwise, it is a waste of Jackie's time if he thinks he can convince me - and most likely many of us who post on this forum will be just as difficult to convince.

On the other hand, I am perfectly willing to continue to give him lessons in probability, biology and chemistry.  None of which are areas of my expertise, only areas of my hobby interests.

 

There was a researcher/professor who designed a head/cap which had electrodes on it and he would put people in a completely dark and silent room. He'd let them sit there and get really relaxed then turn on his machine which would send a magnetic field to a specific area of the brain. The people come out and tell him that they felt their god, jesus, allah or what ever they believed in "spiritually".

Seems a specific part of our brain is responsible for the stimulation of such experiences and would explain out people believe they see, talk or experience god.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: There

digitalbeachbum wrote:

There was a researcher/professor who designed a head/cap which had electrodes on it and he would put people in a completely dark and silent room. He'd let them sit there and get really relaxed then turn on his machine which would send a magnetic field to a specific area of the brain. The people come out and tell him that they felt their god, jesus, allah or what ever they believed in "spiritually".

Seems a specific part of our brain is responsible for the stimulation of such experiences and would explain out people believe they see, talk or experience god.

 

The right temporal lobe seizures are true.  Well known in the medical world.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2003/godonbrainqa.shtml

Quote:

What percentage of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy suffer from religious hallucinations?

It is difficult to say because unless the doctor brings up the subject directly with the patient, they may never know if the patient has religious hallucinations. Estimates vary between 10 and 70% , but most neurologists believe only a minority of patients with temporal lobe epilepsy suffer from hallucinations.

I've had nurses who work in the epilepsy/stroke wards tell me they believe that it is 70% +++

 

The helmet was dubbed "The God Helmet" by the popular press.  The actual results were not as much fun.  80% of the people felt there was someone(s) in the room besides themselves or they felt they had an out of body experience.  The other(s) the subjects felt in the room may have been god/s/dess or angels or aliens.  No real consistency.  Michael Shermer said he felt nothing.  If you are one of the 20% that feel nothing are you less likely to be a believer?  Don't know as there haven't been any studies on that.

Here is the god helmet -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y02UlkYjSi0&feature=related

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:

What option are you using to post your video so others can see it with or with out the link?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote: What

digitalbeachbum wrote:

What option are you using to post your video so others can see it with or with out the link?

 

I'm using FireFox as my browser. 

Open video in a new tab.

On youtube, right mouse click on the video. 

Select "Copy embed html"

Back to the forum

Click the Source button at the top of the post I'm editing

Paste (ctrl-v)

Click on Source again.

Then I preview it to make sure it is displaying where and how I want it to.  I find it easiest to type in all text first, then put the video last.  You can put more text after the video, but you may have to adjust the number of lines (on the source page, a line is"<p>&nbsp;</p>" without the quotes {apologies if you already know html code}). 

I believe it may be different if you use a different browser.  I almost never use IE and I haven't messed with Chrome all that much.  Also, other videos in other formats may not copy as neatly, and some won't copy at all.  So I go to youtube because almost certainly someone else has already converted it and posted it up.  If not, I usually don't mess around trying to convert it myself.  Too much time and not enough interest on my part to bother figuring it out.

Yeah, for someone who has worked in IT for as many years as I have, it is amazing how little I like to muck around with computers.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:digitalbeachbum

cj wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

What option are you using to post your video so others can see it with or with out the link?

 

I'm using FireFox as my browser. 

Open video in a new tab.

On youtube, right mouse click on the video. 

Select "Copy embed html"

Back to the forum

Click the Source button at the top of the post I'm editing

Paste (ctrl-v)

Click on Source again.

Then I preview it to make sure it is displaying where and how I want it to.  I find it easiest to type in all text first, then put the video last.  You can put more text after the video, but you may have to adjust the number of lines (on the source page, a line is"<p>&nbsp;</p>" without the quotes {apologies if you already know html code}). 

I believe it may be different if you use a different browser.  I almost never use IE and I haven't messed with Chrome all that much.  Also, other videos in other formats may not copy as neatly, and some won't copy at all.  So I go to youtube because almost certainly someone else has already converted it and posted it up.  If not, I usually don't mess around trying to convert it myself.  Too much time and not enough interest on my part to bother figuring it out.

Yeah, for someone who has worked in IT for as many years as I have, it is amazing how little I like to muck around with computers.

 

I had tried that copy and paste of the "embed html" but it never worked for me. I didn't think it was my browsers (I use four of them) but it could be the tinkering I have done to customize them.

Yeah, I worked in IT for 25 years. I'm so tired of computers I prefer to not be around them (and phone systems).

I sat down one day and figured out the number of hours I put in to my job over the 25 years. It turns out that I actually put in 47 years of work (I used to carry several pagers and be on call 24/7).

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10339
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
I really want to try that

I really want to try that helmet thingy now.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:ProzacDeathWish

cj wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 Yes, God produced a natural universe, but unlike human creative processes, he need only will something into existence.   Being omnipotent has its advantages. God's creative methods are more akin to those of a mythical genie who simply "poofs" things into existence. 

 

Yes jackspell, that is a much more viable theory as to how the universe came to be.  Why does anything exist ?  Why God simply willed it into existence !                             

 

Heya,

Jake won't talk to me, so I'll just make some comments.  Thank you for taking the time to respond to him, PDW.

I don't believe he has a PhD in anything, let alone engineering math.  He couldn't have got through a Bachelor's and retain that attitude.

I have given him three very good reasons why his lottery math is inappropriate for the problem, and he has not addressed any of them.

1. Natural selection works by keeping what works and discarding what doesn't.  That dramatically changes the odds and how you calculate the problem.

2. Natural selection is stochastic, not random.  That is, there are portions of the problem that are unvarying - such as the elements used to create organic molecules, or the chemical bonds shaped by the physics of the elements.

3. Proteins are not randomly created.  They are determined by the codons (groups of three of the four nucleotides).  There are only so many combinations of nucleotides possible.  Also, proteins come in varying sizes.  So the odds of  making the shortest is vastly different than the odds of making the longest.  And it isn't hard to make a longer protein, just keep adding more codons.  The shorter pieces that had a function, still have that function - and maybe the longer pieces can be used in other novel fashions.

So you see, Jackie has all the hallmarks of the person in the middle of Doxastic Closure.  He is also a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

Saying someone is in one or both of those states is not meant to be insulting.  You have to realize you are there before you can do something about it.  We all have to struggle and watch ourselves because we are all susceptible.  Jackie will not see himself as being in this state, because that would be the first step to acknowledging that he really does know jack sh*t about the subject.  And he is so heavily invested in maintaining his beliefs.

Jackie needs to ask himself, "Am I willing to base my beliefs on evidence?  What kind of evidence would it take to change my beliefs?"  If he can not imagine ever basing his beliefs on evidence or any evidence that would change his beliefs, he will never listen to any of us or any anyone else for that matter who does not hold his beliefs.

 

First, let me apologies to everyone for not responding IMMEDIATELY. Apparently this is unacceptable. So I am sorry my weekend was spent away from home with my young children. Anyway, I regret to inform you, my dear, just because you currently maintain a B+ in your sophmore biology class does not qualify you to undermine the field of genomics. I don't even know where to begin, given everything you have offered to refute my claims is beyond absurd. For you to claim there is nothing mysterious about genomes anymore shows how feeble your mind is. Yes, there are 4 nucleotides. Yes, there are only 3 codons. Considering this allows for 64 unique permutations, the total number of possibe codons is far from astronomical. But what your ignorance fails to comprehend is that the genome of an organism is not contained within a sequence of only the 64 possible codons. Rather, the genes are are sections of DNA with specific sequences of bases (genetic code) that determine cell function and physical traits. Perhaps your teacher will educate the class on what some of those numbers are. For instance, humans have an ESTIMATED 10000-25000 protein coding genes, in a SPECIFIC sequence within 3000000000 base pairs. If there is nothing mysterious about this, how about you go ahead and sequence the human genome in your next post. You might also want to have it published. That is, unless you think there is nothing glorious about a Nobel Prize.

The next heartbreaker for you, is the fact that your "Messiah", natural selection, is not applicable to the THE FIRST LIVING CELL, for which my calculations pertained. Try to keep up. So then, tell me how my calculations for the first cell are incorrect, BY GIVING ME THE CORRECT CALCULATIONS. The Pelagibacter Unique is one of the smallest and simplest non-parasitic organisms. It has 1354 protein coding genes and 1308759 base pairs. So, if we use a genome this size as an example of the first living cell, show us how SIMPLE this is. Granted, my calculation was MORE THAN GENEROUS for abiogenesis, it wasn't even close to the actual absurdity the exact one is. So in yours, don't forget about the fact that after the completed sequence of amino acids is miraculously translated, it must be folded 3 dimentionally to the correct shapes of the proteins. No problem, right? So, worshipper of Richard Dawkins, give us the probability for CHNOPS to arrange themselves in a manner that would create the 5-carbon sugars, the phospahates, and the bases, then bond, to create the RANDOMLY ordered 1308759 base pairs. Then, out of the 1354 protein coding genes, tell us the other useful codons within the gene complex. Now, tell us the probility of this randomly ordered series of base pairs creating a gene complex. Finally, after aquiring access to the CIA headquarters in Langley, multiple that probability by the 1354 total gene complexes. If their supercomputer doesn't crash, let us know what you got. I cant wait.

Hopefully you can show these other cowards how to back up their vacuous posts by answering my challenge. Funny thing is, I imagine you are a female, while the others that were suppose to calculate the ocean conditions and give me their description of how matter and energy came into existence are male, but also lack testicles. Ironic. Oh well, I hope to hear from you real soon.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
fail intelligent design arguments are FUCKING FAIL

asshat wrote:
First, let me apologies to everyone for not responding IMMEDIATELY.

That's ok. No one honestly gave a damn the first time.

 

Quote:
Anyway, I regret to inform you, my dear, just because you currently maintain a B+ in your sophmore biology class does not qualify you to undermine the field of genomics.

Quote:
I don't even know where to begin, given everything I have offered to refute you claims is beyond absurd.

There, there... Frances.

Quote:
For you to claim there is nothing rational about the bible anymore shows how feeble the minds of its authors were.

Cool. I so agree.

 

Quote:
But what my ignorance fails to comprehend is the likely natural explanation for nucleic acids.

Well.. we all have our faults. Some faults more blatantly obvious than others. Eye-wink

 

Quote:
Rather, the genes are are sections of DNA with specific sequences of bases (genetic code) that determine cell function and physical traits.

NO

DNA determines Ribosome structure, which in turn determines the amino acid composition of proteins. Fairly fucking simple biology lesson to learn. Unfortunately... you obviously weren't paying attention in 7th/9th grade science classes, or whatever dipshit, nonsecular private school you went to sucked hardcore. The jury's still out on the later. Eye-wink

Quote:
Perhaps my teacher will educate me on what some of those numbers are.

if Mrs. Crabtree couldn't educate you the first time, it's doubtful she'll give you a clue the second time around.

Quote:
If there is nothing mysterious about this, how about you go ahead and sequence the human genome in your next post. You might also want to have it published.

Wow you're behind the bell curve.

Quote:
That is, unless you think there is nothing glorious about a Nobel Prize. The next heartbreaker for you, is the fact that your "Messiah", natural selection, is not applicable to the THE FIRST LIVING CELL.

As it is likely that your "FIRST LIVING CELL" died after the moon-forming collision some 4 bln years ago, you have nil for a relevant argument.

Quote:
Try to keep up.

 

Quote:
So then, tell me how my calculations for the first cell are incorrect, BY GIVING ME THE CORRECT CALCULATIONS.

Epistemology contains no "CORRECT CALCULATIONS".

 

Quote:
The Pelagibacter Unique is one of the smallest and simplest non-parasitic organisms. It has 1354 protein coding genes and 1308759 base pairs. So, if we use a genome this size as an example of the first living cell, show us how SIMPLE this is. Granted, my calculation was MORE THAN GENEROUS for abiogenesis

As long as you use epistemology (philosophy) for your arguments, they will amount to dick. Posting lies and garbage is hardly "MORE THAN GENEROUS".

 

Quote:
it wasn't even close to the actual absurdity the exact one is. So in yours, don't forget about the fact that after the completed sequence of amino acids is miraculously translated, it must be folded 3 dimentionally to the correct shapes of the proteins. No problem, right? So, worshipper of Richard Dawkins, give us the probability for CHNOPS to arrange themselves in a manner that would create the 5-carbon sugars, the (blablabla)

As no one in biology (that I know of) has made that argument, it is moot to demonstrate it in action.

 

Quote:
Then, out of the 1354 protein coding genes, tell us the other useful codons within the gene complex. Now, tell us the probility of this randomly ordered series of base pairs creating a gene complex. Finally, after aquiring access to the CIA headquarters in Langley, multiple that probability by the 1354 total gene complexes.

A less-than-rational theistard and non-scientist is lecturing us about empiricism using red herrings and ad homs. Quaint.

 

Quote:
If their supercomputer doesn't crash, let us know what you got. I cant wait. Hopefully you can show these other cowards how to back up their vacuous posts by answering my challenge.

What challenge? I don't see the fucking challenge, just a bunch of incoherent, meaningless drivel.

Quote:
Funny thing is, I imagine you are a female

Quote:
while the others that were suppose to calculate the ocean conditions and give me their description of how matter and energy came into existence are male, but also lack testicles.

Quote:
Ironic. Oh well, I hope to hear from you real soon.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:I really want

Vastet wrote:
I really want to try that helmet thingy now.

Nope. I'm first in line to indoctrinate my private legions of slaves into genuinely believing I am omnipotence personified.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:[trashes

Kapkao wrote:

[trashes Jackotard thoroughly]

I love the Frances line.. reminds me of Stripes...

Psycho: The name's Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis... I'll kill you.

Leon: Ooooooh

Psycho: You just made the list buddy... and I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff... I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now... any of you homos touch me... and I'll kill you!

Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up Francis.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
A few questions for Jackspell

jackspell wrote:

First, let me apologies to everyone for not responding IMMEDIATELY. Apparently this is unacceptable. So I am sorry my weekend was spent away from home with my young children. Anyway, I regret to inform you, my dear, just because you currently maintain a B+ in your sophmore biology class does not qualify you to undermine the field of genomics. I don't even know where to begin, given everything you have offered to refute my claims is beyond absurd. For you to claim there is nothing mysterious about genomes anymore shows how feeble your mind is. Yes, there are 4 nucleotides. Yes, there are only 3 codons. Considering this allows for 64 unique permutations, the total number of possibe codons is far from astronomical. But what your ignorance fails to comprehend is that the genome of an organism is not contained within a sequence of only the 64 possible codons. Rather, the genes are are sections of DNA with specific sequences of bases (genetic code) that determine cell function and physical traits. Perhaps your teacher will educate the class on what some of those numbers are. For instance, humans have an ESTIMATED 10000-25000 protein coding genes, in a SPECIFIC sequence within 3000000000 base pairs. If there is nothing mysterious about this, how about you go ahead and sequence the human genome in your next post. You might also want to have it published. That is, unless you think there is nothing glorious about a Nobel Prize. The next heartbreaker for you, is the fact that your "Messiah", natural selection, is not applicable to the THE FIRST LIVING CELL, for which my calculations pertained. Try to keep up. So then, tell me how my calculations for the first cell are incorrect, BY GIVING ME THE CORRECT CALCULATIONS. The Pelagibacter Unique is one of the smallest and simplest non-parasitic organisms. It has 1354 protein coding genes and 1308759 base pairs. So, if we use a genome this size as an example of the first living cell, show us how SIMPLE this is. Granted, my calculation was MORE THAN GENEROUS for abiogenesis, it wasn't even close to the actual absurdity the exact one is. So in yours, don't forget about the fact that after the completed sequence of amino acids is miraculously translated, it must be folded 3 dimentionally to the correct shapes of the proteins. No problem, right? So, worshipper of Richard Dawkins, give us the probability for CHNOPS to arrange themselves in a manner that would create the 5-carbon sugars, the phospahates, and the bases, then bond, to create the RANDOMLY ordered 1308759 base pairs. Then, out of the 1354 protein coding genes, tell us the other useful codons within the gene complex. Now, tell us the probility of this randomly ordered series of base pairs creating a gene complex. Finally, after aquiring access to the CIA headquarters in Langley, multiple that probability by the 1354 total gene complexes. If their supercomputer doesn't crash, let us know what you got. I cant wait. Hopefully you can show these other cowards how to back up their vacuous posts by answering my challenge. Funny thing is, I imagine you are a female, while the others that were suppose to calculate the ocean conditions and give me their description of how matter and energy came into existence are male, but also lack testicles. Ironic. Oh well, I hope to hear from you real soon.

 

 

So I have several questions for Jackie:

 

1. Do you consider evolution to be proven scientifically? 
2. How did life with specifications for hundreds of proteins originate from inorganic matter just by chemistry without intelligent design? 
3. How did the DNA code originate? 
4. How could copying errors (mutations) create 3 billion letters of DNA instructions to change a microbe into a microbiologist? 
5. Why is natural selection taught as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? 
6. How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? 
7. Living things look like they were designed, so how do evolutionists know that they were not designed? 
8. How did multi-cellular life originate? 
9. How did sex originate? 
10. Why are the (expected) millions of transitional fossils missing? 
11. How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years? 
12. How did blind chemistry create mind/intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? 
13. Why do you reject the idea of an Intelligent Designer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5086
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is onlineOnline
@Kap

 

 

Enjoyed the post, mate. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Nice, Kap.

Nice, Kap.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:asshat wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

asshat wrote:
First, let me apologies to everyone for not responding IMMEDIATELY.

That's ok. No one honestly gave a damn the first time.

 

Quote:
Anyway, I regret to inform you, my dear, just because you currently maintain a B+ in your sophmore biology class does not qualify you to undermine the field of genomics.

Quote:
I don't even know where to begin, given everything I have offered to refute you claims is beyond absurd.

There, there... Frances.

Quote:
For you to claim there is nothing rational about the bible anymore shows how feeble the minds of its authors were.

Cool. I so agree.

 

Quote:
But what my ignorance fails to comprehend is the likely natural explanation for nucleic acids.

Well.. we all have our faults. Some faults more blatantly obvious than others. Eye-wink

 

Quote:
Rather, the genes are are sections of DNA with specific sequences of bases (genetic code) that determine cell function and physical traits.

NO

DNA determines Ribosome structure, which in turn determines the amino acid composition of proteins. Fairly fucking simple biology lesson to learn. Unfortunately... you obviously weren't paying attention in 7th/9th grade science classes, or whatever dipshit, nonsecular private school you went to sucked hardcore. The jury's still out on the later. Eye-wink

Quote:
Perhaps my teacher will educate me on what some of those numbers are.

if Mrs. Crabtree couldn't educate you the first time, it's doubtful she'll give you a clue the second time around.

Quote:
If there is nothing mysterious about this, how about you go ahead and sequence the human genome in your next post. You might also want to have it published.

Wow you're behind the bell curve.

Quote:
That is, unless you think there is nothing glorious about a Nobel Prize. The next heartbreaker for you, is the fact that your "Messiah", natural selection, is not applicable to the THE FIRST LIVING CELL.

As it is likely that your "FIRST LIVING CELL" died after the moon-forming collision some 4 bln years ago, you have nil for a relevant argument.

Quote:
Try to keep up.

 

Quote:
So then, tell me how my calculations for the first cell are incorrect, BY GIVING ME THE CORRECT CALCULATIONS.

Epistemology contains no "CORRECT CALCULATIONS".

 

Quote:
The Pelagibacter Unique is one of the smallest and simplest non-parasitic organisms. It has 1354 protein coding genes and 1308759 base pairs. So, if we use a genome this size as an example of the first living cell, show us how SIMPLE this is. Granted, my calculation was MORE THAN GENEROUS for abiogenesis

As long as you use epistemology (philosophy) for your arguments, they will amount to dick. Posting lies and garbage is hardly "MORE THAN GENEROUS".

 

Quote:
it wasn't even close to the actual absurdity the exact one is. So in yours, don't forget about the fact that after the completed sequence of amino acids is miraculously translated, it must be folded 3 dimentionally to the correct shapes of the proteins. No problem, right? So, worshipper of Richard Dawkins, give us the probability for CHNOPS to arrange themselves in a manner that would create the 5-carbon sugars, the (blablabla)

As no one in biology (that I know of) has made that argument, it is moot to demonstrate it in action.

 

Quote:
Then, out of the 1354 protein coding genes, tell us the other useful codons within the gene complex. Now, tell us the probility of this randomly ordered series of base pairs creating a gene complex. Finally, after aquiring access to the CIA headquarters in Langley, multiple that probability by the 1354 total gene complexes.

A less-than-rational theistard and non-scientist is lecturing us about empiricism using red herrings and ad homs. Quaint.

 

Quote:
If their supercomputer doesn't crash, let us know what you got. I cant wait. Hopefully you can show these other cowards how to back up their vacuous posts by answering my challenge.

What challenge? I don't see the fucking challenge, just a bunch of incoherent, meaningless drivel.

Quote:
Funny thing is, I imagine you are a female

Quote:
while the others that were suppose to calculate the ocean conditions and give me their description of how matter and energy came into existence are male, but also lack testicles.

Quote:
Ironic. Oh well, I hope to hear from you real soon.

You say something?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: First, let

jackspell wrote:
First, let me apologies to everyone for not responding IMMEDIATELY. Apparently this is unacceptable. So I am sorry my weekend was spent away from home with my young children. Anyway, I regret to inform you, my dear, just because you currently maintain a B+ in your sophmore biology class does not qualify you to undermine the field of genomics. I don't even know where to begin, given everything you have offered to refute my claims is beyond absurd. For you to claim there is nothing mysterious about genomes anymore shows how feeble your mind is. Yes, there are 4 nucleotides. Yes, there are only 3 codons. Considering this allows for 64 unique permutations, the total number of possibe codons is far from astronomical. But what your ignorance fails to comprehend is that the genome of an organism is not contained within a sequence of only the 64 possible codons. Rather, the genes are are sections of DNA with specific sequences of bases (genetic code) that determine cell function and physical traits. Perhaps your teacher will educate the class on what some of those numbers are. For instance, humans have an ESTIMATED 10000-25000 protein coding genes, in a SPECIFIC sequence within 3000000000 base pairs. If there is nothing mysterious about this, how about you go ahead and sequence the human genome in your next post. You might also want to have it published. That is, unless you think there is nothing glorious about a Nobel Prize. The next heartbreaker for you, is the fact that your "Messiah", natural selection, is not applicable to the THE FIRST LIVING CELL, for which my calculations pertained. Try to keep up. So then, tell me how my calculations for the first cell are incorrect, BY GIVING ME THE CORRECT CALCULATIONS. The Pelagibacter Unique is one of the smallest and simplest non-parasitic organisms. It has 1354 protein coding genes and 1308759 base pairs. So, if we use a genome this size as an example of the first living cell, show us how SIMPLE this is. Granted, my calculation was MORE THAN GENEROUS for abiogenesis, it wasn't even close to the actual absurdity the exact one is. So in yours, don't forget about the fact that after the completed sequence of amino acids is miraculously translated, it must be folded 3 dimentionally to the correct shapes of the proteins. No problem, right? So, worshipper of Richard Dawkins, give us the probability for CHNOPS to arrange themselves in a manner that would create the 5-carbon sugars, the phospahates, and the bases, then bond, to create the RANDOMLY ordered 1308759 base pairs. Then, out of the 1354 protein coding genes, tell us the other useful codons within the gene complex. Now, tell us the probility of this randomly ordered series of base pairs creating a gene complex. Finally, after aquiring access to the CIA headquarters in Langley, multiple that probability by the 1354 total gene complexes. If their supercomputer doesn't crash, let us know what you got. I cant wait. Hopefully you can show these other cowards how to back up their vacuous posts by answering my challenge. Funny thing is, I imagine you are a female, while the others that were suppose to calculate the ocean conditions and give me their description of how matter and energy came into existence are male, but also lack testicles. Ironic. Oh well, I hope to hear from you real soon.

 

Forgive my impatience, Jackie, but I have posted twice (2) before without a response.  How am I supposed to know if you are one of those religious types who refuse to talk to females or not?  I have been thoroughly ignored before, and I expect I will be ignored again.

The sequences are not specific.  And there are myriad copying errors.  "... each child inherits somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 50 new mutations."  http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/331194/title/Human_mutation_rate_slower_than_thought__

So there are DNA errors galore by the time you multiply over generations.  Not specific, not perfect, not fatal and capable of interbreeding with others without the same mutations. 

You are still making the error of ignoring physics.  Chemicals form bonds according to laws of physics and certain combinations are impossible.  It is impossible to have a noble gas form a bond with another element.  It is impossible for carbon atoms to permanently form 64 bonds or only 1 bond.  Organic molecules are carbon chains because of the physics of carbon atoms.  Not random.  Not chance.  Not design.  Naturalistic science.

I know that under extreme pressures and temperatures, we can force strange new compounds.  But, we are not talking 0 Kelvin or 3,000,000 Kelvins (or some other ridiculous number).  We are talking the earth's oceans most likely.  Even near the "black smokers" on the ocean floor, we don't have the kind of extreme conditions that give us compounds that defy the laws of physics.  Onward.

The formation of these molecules is definitely NOT random.

Secondly, the first self-replicating molecule would not have been like modern DNA - or RNA.  The simplest bacteria, Pelagibacter ubique, is many orders of magnitude more complex than these early self-replicating molecules.  Biologists who study abiogenesis call these "protobionts".  There are known self-replicating peptides and hexanucleotides that might be more closely related to that first molecule.  Or it might have been an RNA polymerase that acted on itself - also known to exist.  Or perhaps other catalysts or enzymes that self-replicate.  We have lots of examples of self-replicating molecules that are not DNA.  So the very first need not have been fully formed DNA - let alone an entire genome.

At that point, you would need to explain just why a self-replicating molecule could NOT continue to replicate with collected errors that eventually became DNA that eventually became a fully formed genome.  What mechanism would stop the replication errors, duplications, and/or extensions of the existing molecule?

The real abiogenesis theory is simple chemicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria.  Each step didn't happen over night.  Many thousands of replications and replication errors occurred along the way.  But there was time.  The earth is 4.6 billion years old (approximately) and the oldest Eubacteria and Archaebacteria left fossils that are 3.5 billions years old.  A billion years to turn inorganic chemicals into bacteria - probably plenty of time.

You might have fun perusing this web site: http://www.bacteriamuseum.org/cms/Evolution/eubacteria-and-archaebacteria-the-oldest-forms-of-life.html

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Top Ten Commandments of Jackspell

Top Ten Commandments of Jackspell

1 - Thou shall always have faith in creationism

2 - Thou shall always support creationism

3 - Thou shall persist with commandment #1 and #2 even if makes you look ignorant

4 - Thou shall not make claims to be in support of creationism

5 - Thou shall make distracting and unsupported claims when possible

6 - Thou shall ask irrelevant questions about the lotto when overwhelming evidence is brought to bear against thy delusions

7 - Thou shall, when possible, cut and paste

8 - Thou shall avoid giving sources or credit from commandment #7

9 - Thou shall claim thy is has been trained in advance mathematics and an engineer as needed

10 - Thou shall ignore postings from females

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

 Here's the bottom line folks:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids, proteins, DNA, genes, chromosomes, etc.  If you're an atheist that is most likely a naturalist, since you have BELIEF IN SOMETHING WITHOUT PROOF, that is FAITH.  You can cry about it all you want, but until someone observes abiogenesis without intelligent design, you are relying heavily on faith.

Nobody has EVER observed an organism evolve beyond its Biological Classification system.  We have been working with E.Coli for over 100 years and NEVER has there been a single one of them evolve into anything other than E.Coli. NEVER! And if any of you have actually read into what evolutionary scientists say about the fossil record, you'd see that they ADMIT the lack of expected transitional fossils.  But that's a lot of your problems, you don't even do your own reading.  You rely on BLIND FAITH by not even checking into these things yourself.  That's pathetic.  I mean does anybody that knows what an exponent is really believe that random mutations are the sole source of all the information contained in the human genome? Or some of the even more complex genomes contained in some plants? I guess I take for granted everyone is as educated mathematically as I am, so let me simplify.  In 24 consecutive years, the E. Coli evolutionary experiment has been reproducing at a maximal rate, with every generation being observed and documented.  THE NUMBER OF BENEFICIARY MUTATIONS THAT HAVE BECOME FIXATED IS BETWEEN 10 and 20.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_experiment

http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/tis2/index.php/component/content/article/51.html Your move.

 

Sorry, the ball is still in your court. You completely whiffed at trying to return my previous spike.

You didn't read the entire entry for the Miller-Urey experiment did you? Well I read the entire post you provided and I immediately found out that it was outdated and providing mis-information.

The sole "scientist" your provided was JH John Peet who, while having degrees, has one sole purpose in his life. It's to criticize any science which might harm the idea that a god exists. He provides a quasi-science that has been twisted and mutilated to fit a answer (aka - a god exists).

Also, the post from JH John Peet is WAY out dated. There weren't 9 amino acids found but 25!

Other compounds were also created in other experiments similar to the Miller-Urey experiment.

So you prove that you are ignorant because you make a statement

jackspell wrote:

Nobody has EVER seen how inorganic matter could come together and form the complex molecules making up amino acids

Yet I produce information proving otherwise and even your precious JH Peet admits that amino acids WERE created in the experiment.

 

 

I love how you only quote a fragment of my sentence, then respond with a self-congradulatory tone. You are correct and I concede the amount of amino acids that were reportedly produced. But like the rest of my sentence said, NO PROTEINS, DNA, GENES, CHROMOSOMES ETC WERE PRODUCED! You object to this? Also, the TRACE amounts of amino acids that were produced were consistently a RACEMIC mixture. In life, almost all of the amino acids must be left-handed, while carbohydrates, which by the way were NOT FOUND IN THE EXPERIMENT, must be right-handed. Opposite types are not only useless, but also toxic and lethal.

Next, Miller used an oxygen free atmosphere because they took the fact of chemical evolution a priori. Most now believe earth's early atmosphere was oxygen rich, which would change things drastically. CO2 is also considered to have been plentiful, thus creating even more problems. Finally, amonia, H2, and methane are thought to have not been major components in the early atmosphere.

I could keep going, but enough has been said that you will have no plausible answer for. To summarize, the experiment's atmosphere is not what most scientists now believe early earth's to be. Also, the amino acids produced were a racemic, self-defeating mixture. Finally, no DNA, RNA, GENES, RIBOSOMES, PROTEINS, OR CHROMOSOMES were produced. If someone produces a truckload of bricks and wood, just dumping it on the ground is not going to create a house. It still must be assembled. So even if I were to concede the speculative atmosphere, NO LIFE WAS CREATED. Game, set, match. Don't forget to tip your waiter.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I love how you only

Quote:
I love how you only quote a fragment of my sentence,

How much of Harry Potter do you have to read before you know it is fiction? Stop trying to defend fiction.

Babies need TWO sets of DNA, so your magic baby story is bullshit.

Humans do not survive rigor mortis, thus your zombie god death claim is also bullshit.

THERE short and sweet. If others here want to walk down your Yellow Brick Road, they can. But when ANY of us quote a "fragment" of any tripe you spew here, it is because we are cutting through your crap.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Kapkao

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

[trashes Jackotard thoroughly]

I love the Frances line.. reminds me of Stripes...

Psycho: The name's Francis Soyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Any of you guys call me Francis... I'll kill you.

Leon: Ooooooh

Psycho: You just made the list buddy... and I don't like nobody touching my stuff. So just keep your meat hooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff... I'll kill you. Also, I don't like nobody touching me. Now... any of you homos touch me... and I'll kill you!

Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up Francis.

 

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

 

Enjoyed the post, mate. 

cj wrote:

Nice, Kap.

/bow

My experience with numerous flame wars, flamers and messageboard trolls over the past 15 years really does shine through, some days. Believe it or not, I was the target of said flamers and trolls at certain junctures. Good, clean fun it was, but I don't miss being banned because someone, somewhere disagreed with what I said.  (Yes, that IS the tip of the iceberg of some of the "web communities" I describe If you google/bing up "Lum the Mad" and "Down in Flames", you might get a better firsthand recollection of what I describe, but since it happened over a decade ago... it's moot.)

Jacko Jackson wrote:
You say something?

Nope. I didn't say a single goddamned thing. You?

Quit hatin' on my cougar, though. She owes me buttsex, a handjob and some "ewww bugspray!" in her ripe, old age.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10339
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
jackspell wrote:First, let

jackspell wrote:
First, let me apologies to everyone for not responding IMMEDIATELY.

Cut the bs. You took 4 days to respond to my first post, and wrote 13 responses in this topic alone in the meantime. And then when you finally decided to give a response, you only bothered with 5 of 13 different arguments or statements. I wouldn't even mention this but for your "poor me" act. Take a fucking month to respond if you need to. This is a internet forum, not a city council. You won't get banned or censored for taking a bit more time to respond. You might get ribbed, but you can easily turn that in your favour by ignoring it, making jokes, giving an explanation, or pretty well doing anything other than whining with a sarcastic attitude.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote: I love how

jackspell wrote:

I love how you only quote a fragment of my sentence, then respond with a self-congradulatory tone. You are correct and I concede the amount of amino acids that were reportedly produced. But like the rest of my sentence said, NO PROTEINS, DNA, GENES, CHROMOSOMES ETC WERE PRODUCED! You object to this? Also, the TRACE amounts of amino acids that were produced were consistently a RACEMIC mixture. In life, almost all of the amino acids must be left-handed, while carbohydrates, which by the way were NOT FOUND IN THE EXPERIMENT, must be right-handed. Opposite types are not only useless, but also toxic and lethal. Next, Miller used an oxygen free atmosphere because they took the fact of chemical evolution a priori. Most now believe earth's early atmosphere was oxygen rich, which would change things drastically. CO2 is also considered to have been plentiful, thus creating even more problems. Finally, amonia, H2, and methane are thought to have not been major components in the early atmosphere. I could keep going, but enough has been said that you will have no plausible answer for. To summarize, the experiment's atmosphere is not what most scientists now believe early earth's to be. Also, the amino acids produced were a racemic, self-defeating mixture. Finally, no DNA, RNA, GENES, RIBOSOMES, PROTEINS, OR CHROMOSOMES were produced. If someone produces a truckload of bricks and wood, just dumping it on the ground is not going to create a house. It still must be assembled. So even if I were to concede the speculative atmosphere, NO LIFE WAS CREATED. Game, set, match. Don't forget to tip your waiter.

I never made any claims to the other aspect of DNA... etc. However... proteins have been created in similar experiments and (please, anyone, correct me if I am wrong, but forms of DNA or RNA or similar have been created by mankind).

Yes of course, I ignored the rest of the statement because my sole purpose was to show that the amino acids HAD been produced in the experiment.

Miller used several different forms of the experiment and many other scientists have replicated the experiment using different variables.

You assume that I have no plausible explanation for how living things could have come about from the given variables, but yet you offer no alternative. This is your fallacy. You pretend to debate with out debating. You are merely arguing one side of the subject with out having to put your alternatives on the table for peer review.

You claim "that MOST SCIENTISTS now believe". Yet another fallacy where you present inaccurate generalized references. To make the claim "most" it would indicate a "majority". Please provide proof of such a claim.

You are comparing apples to oranges. A house isn't going to build itself because it is a creation of man. An amino acid is not a creation. It is formed through natural conditions in nature which man can replicate in a lab.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I love

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I love how you only quote a fragment of my sentence,

How much of Harry Potter do you have to read before you know it is fiction? Stop trying to defend fiction.

Babies need TWO sets of DNA, so your magic baby story is bullshit.

Humans do not survive rigor mortis, thus your zombie god death claim is also bullshit.

THERE short and sweet. If others here want to walk down your Yellow Brick Road, they can. But when ANY of us quote a "fragment" of any tripe you spew here, it is because we are cutting through your crap.

But, see... there's a perfectly rational explanation for that as well. Mary was probably raped by an angel (NSFW), then blackmailed "Jonas" into keeping her broken hymen a secret while preggers. She was probably known as the "village slut" down by the legionnaire barracks.

Of course... she may have gotten some in the wrong place after a massive bukkakefest at one of the "Venus temples" of the time.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:jackspell

Vastet wrote:
jackspell wrote:
First, let me apologies to everyone for not responding IMMEDIATELY.
Cut the bs. You took 4 days to respond to my first post, and wrote 13 responses in this topic alone in the meantime. And then when you finally decided to give a response, you only bothered with 5 of 13 different arguments or statements. I wouldn't even mention this but for your "poor me" act. Take a fucking month to respond if you need to. This is a internet forum, not a city council. You won't get banned or censored for taking a bit more time to respond. You might get ribbed, but you can easily turn that in your favour by ignoring it, making jokes, giving an explanation, or pretty well doing anything other than whining with a sarcastic attitude.

 

You aren't even worth responding to.  You have offered nothing of any substance.  Basically, you are a piss-on.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

I love how you only quote a fragment of my sentence, then respond with a self-congradulatory tone. You are correct and I concede the amount of amino acids that were reportedly produced. But like the rest of my sentence said, NO PROTEINS, DNA, GENES, CHROMOSOMES ETC WERE PRODUCED! You object to this? Also, the TRACE amounts of amino acids that were produced were consistently a RACEMIC mixture. In life, almost all of the amino acids must be left-handed, while carbohydrates, which by the way were NOT FOUND IN THE EXPERIMENT, must be right-handed. Opposite types are not only useless, but also toxic and lethal. Next, Miller used an oxygen free atmosphere because they took the fact of chemical evolution a priori. Most now believe earth's early atmosphere was oxygen rich, which would change things drastically. CO2 is also considered to have been plentiful, thus creating even more problems. Finally, amonia, H2, and methane are thought to have not been major components in the early atmosphere. I could keep going, but enough has been said that you will have no plausible answer for. To summarize, the experiment's atmosphere is not what most scientists now believe early earth's to be. Also, the amino acids produced were a racemic, self-defeating mixture. Finally, no DNA, RNA, GENES, RIBOSOMES, PROTEINS, OR CHROMOSOMES were produced. If someone produces a truckload of bricks and wood, just dumping it on the ground is not going to create a house. It still must be assembled. So even if I were to concede the speculative atmosphere, NO LIFE WAS CREATED. Game, set, match. Don't forget to tip your waiter.

I never made any claims to the other aspect of DNA... etc. However... proteins have been created in similar experiments and (please, anyone, correct me if I am wrong, but forms of DNA or RNA or similar have been created by mankind).

Yes of course, I ignored the rest of the statement because my sole purpose was to show that the amino acids HAD been produced in the experiment.

Miller used several different forms of the experiment and many other scientists have replicated the experiment using different variables.

You assume that I have no plausible explanation for how living things could have come about from the given variables, but yet you offer no alternative. This is your fallacy. You pretend to debate with out debating. You are merely arguing one side of the subject with out having to put your alternatives on the table for peer review.

You claim "that MOST SCIENTISTS now believe". Yet another fallacy where you present inaccurate generalized references. To make the claim "most" it would indicate a "majority". Please provide proof of such a claim.

You are comparing apples to oranges. A house isn't going to build itself because it is a creation of man. An amino acid is not a creation. It is formed through natural conditions in nature which man can replicate in a lab.

 

 

Even if you were correct about proteins and DNA being synthesized in a lab, which I do not believe you are, all that would show is that an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER was necessary, not natural. And I have given an alternative, God. Just because I lack the knowledge of EXACTLY HOW His mechanism for creation works in no way invalidates Him as an option. Like I demonstrated with my lotto analogy, if I win 5 consecutive Powerball drawings,YOU DON'T HAVE TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW I CHEATED TO MAINTAIN YOUR BELIEF THAT I UNDOUBTEDLY CHEATED. Consequently, you don't have to understand exactly how the designer's mechanism works, to know that it works.

And my comparison is apples to apples. You say a house is not going to build itself because it is a creation of man. That is my point! A chromosome has never built itsel because it is the creation of an intelligent designer! Yes amino acids are the building blocks, and they are found in nature. Wood, is the building blocks of the house, and it is also found in nature. But without an intelligent agent, there is no assembly.

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Quit hatin' on

Kapkao wrote:

Quit hatin' on my cougar, though. She owes me buttsex, a handjob and some "ewww bugspray!" in her ripe, old age.

 

I ain't nobody's anything.  Sheeze....... And I need an entire case of bugspray at this point.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:To

jackspell wrote:

To summarize, the experiment's atmosphere is not what most scientists now believe early earth's to be.

 

Source?  How about a web site from a lab that does real science?  Did you even look at the cool site on bacteria?

 

jackspell wrote:

Even if you were correct about proteins and DNA being synthesized in a lab, which I do not believe you are, all that would show is that an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER was necessary, not natural. And I have given an alternative, God. Just because I lack the knowledge of EXACTLY HOW His mechanism for creation works in no way invalidates Him as an option. Like I demonstrated with my lotto analogy, if I win 5 consecutive Powerball drawings,YOU DON'T HAVE TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW I CHEATED TO MAINTAIN YOUR BELIEF THAT I UNDOUBTEDLY CHEATED. Consequently, you don't have to understand exactly how the designer's mechanism works, to know that it works. And my comparison is apples to apples. You say a house is not going to build itself because it is a creation of man. That is my point! A chromosome has never built itsel because it is the creation of an intelligent designer! Yes amino acids are the building blocks, and they are found in nature. Wood, is the building blocks of the house, and it is also found in nature. But without an intelligent agent, there is no assembly.

 

Your intelligent designer isn't intelligent.  Sorry.  DNA is the biggest mishmash of trash going.  Mistakes galore.  Miscopies, additional sequences not found in the original, entire pieces cut out, crossovers, and yet, the organism still lives, still reproduces and still has viable offspring.  This is not perfection.

And your lotto example is the funniest yet.  If you were truly a PhD in engineering math, you would know that unlikely does not mean impossible.  Is it possible use a fair coin to throw 10 heads in a row?  Sure.  100?  Sure.  A million?  Sure.  It just gets less likely as the number goes up.  Winning the lottery 5 times in a row is possible - just not very likely.  And no indication of cheating.  Now, if this winner were the programmer of the lotto games - we might have a problem, Jackie.

If godly assembly is necessary, explain to me how any embryo - plant, fungi, human, whatever - grows to adulthood.  Does god/s/dess nurture every acorn into an oak tree?  Nudge every spore into a mushroom?  Oversee every amoebic split?  I'd be surprised.  Let's try the laws of thermodynamics, okay?  Energy in the form of light and heat is added to every system on earth from both the sun and the earth's inner core.  This energy is converted into chemical and physical processes - that we understand very well if not perfectly - that cause changes in the state of living and nonliving things.  Including physical growth and evolution.  Not so hard, was it?

Now, ask yourself - "What evidence would cause me to change my mind about evolution?" 

Is the answer nothing?  Doxastic closure is the state you are in, bud.  This leaves you open to any scammer who comes along, recognizes your weaknesses, and takes you for every penny you've got.  Thank your god or your lucky stars I'm too ethical to take advantage.

Oh, and I would drop evolution in a heartbeat if - the universe was proven to be less than 13 odd billion years old; the earth was proven to be less than 4.6 billion years old; we were not genetically related - if only a small percentage - to one - just one - form of life on this planet; there was a fossil of a completely modern critter found in a totally inappropriate geologic formation.  And I could go on with even more scenarios.

Believe in god/s/dess?  Evidence, just give me some replicatable evidence.  Because that is how science works.  If I make a claim, other people had better be able to repeat my experiment and get the same results.  If they can not repeat the experiment and get the same results, it didn't happen.  Which is why belief in god/s/dess is not scientific.  Get god/s/dess to repeat the miracle, get it witnessed, analyzed, measured, and we might have a conversation about the reality of said deity/deities.  I might even agree with you on their existence, if not on their worthiness for worship.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
jackspell wrote:Even if you

jackspell wrote:

Even if you were correct about proteins and DNA being synthesized in a lab, which I do not believe you are, all that would show is that an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER was necessary, not natural. And I have given an alternative, God. Just because I lack the knowledge of EXACTLY HOW His mechanism for creation works in no way invalidates Him as an option. Like I demonstrated with my lotto analogy, if I win 5 consecutive Powerball drawings,YOU DON'T HAVE TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW I CHEATED TO MAINTAIN YOUR BELIEF THAT I UNDOUBTEDLY CHEATED. Consequently, you don't have to understand exactly how the designer's mechanism works, to know that it works. And my comparison is apples to apples. You say a house is not going to build itself because it is a creation of man. That is my point! A chromosome has never built itsel because it is the creation of an intelligent designer! Yes amino acids are the building blocks, and they are found in nature. Wood, is the building blocks of the house, and it is also found in nature. But without an intelligent agent, there is no assembly.

I found this article from 2009 on self replicating RNA. I know it isn't the "entire picture" but it explains a little more of how things might work.

http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

I've said this before and it appears I will continue saying it until some one listens. I do not debate faith.

You work on faith which appears to be below 100% certainty. You stated previously that life forming with out intelligent design was X:Y chance. Even though the number was amazingly long and very slim in chance, it still means that it COULD happen on its own. This means that IT COULD happen with out intervention of an intelligent design.

There is an issue I have with people who have "intelligent design" being their foundation. This foundation is built on assumptions. You for example appear to come from a christian background which means you are influenced by the bible. This means that you already believe in your god of abraham. This means that you have skipped from having to prove that your god exists. You are yet again, using a fallacy to discuss a subject which has no foundation.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2742
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Your intelligent

cj wrote:

Your intelligent designer isn't intelligent.  Sorry.  DNA is the biggest mishmash of trash going.  Mistakes galore.  Miscopies, additional sequences not found in the original, entire pieces cut out, crossovers, and yet, the organism still lives, still reproduces and still has viable offspring.  This is not perfection.

And your lotto example is the funniest yet.  If you were truly a PhD in engineering math, you would know that unlikely does not mean impossible.  Is it possible use a fair coin to throw 10 heads in a row?  Sure.  100?  Sure.  A million?  Sure.  It just gets less likely as the number goes up.  Winning the lottery 5 times in a row is possible - just not very likely.  And no indication of cheating.  Now, if this winner were the programmer of the lotto games - we might have a problem, Jackie.

If godly assembly is necessary, explain to me how any embryo - plant, fungi, human, whatever - grows to adulthood.  Does god/s/dess nurture every acorn into an oak tree?  Nudge every spore into a mushroom?  Oversee every amoebic split?  I'd be surprised.  Let's try the laws of thermodynamics, okay?  Energy in the form of light and heat is added to every system on earth from both the sun and the earth's inner core.  This energy is converted into chemical and physical processes - that we understand very well if not perfectly - that cause changes in the state of living and nonliving things.  Including physical growth and evolution.  Not so hard, was it?

Now, ask yourself - "What evidence would cause me to change my mind about evolution?" 

Is the answer nothing?  Doxastic closure is the state you are in, bud.  This leaves you open to any scammer who comes along, recognizes your weaknesses, and takes you for every penny you've got.  Thank your god or your lucky stars I'm too ethical to take advantage.

Oh, and I would drop evolution in a heartbeat if - the universe was proven to be less than 13 odd billion years old; the earth was proven to be less than 4.6 billion years old; we were not genetically related - if only a small percentage - to one - just one - form of life on this planet; there was a fossil of a completely modern critter found in a totally inappropriate geologic formation.  And I could go on with even more scenarios.

Believe in god/s/dess?  Evidence, just give me some replicatable evidence.  Because that is how science works.  If I make a claim, other people had better be able to repeat my experiment and get the same results.  If they can not repeat the experiment and get the same results, it didn't happen.  Which is why belief in god/s/dess is not scientific.  Get god/s/dess to repeat the miracle, get it witnessed, analyzed, measured, and we might have a conversation about the reality of said deity/deities.  I might even agree with you on their existence, if not on their worthiness for worship.

 

Let's not forget that the reason why we age is because when the DNA replicates it becomes less and less hardy. Mistakes start over taking the successful copies. We get cancer. We get disease. We eventually die.

BTW - nice post. too bad it was wasted on a person who uses faith to rationalize their entire view point.

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Let's

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Let's not forget that the reason why we age is because when the DNA replicates it becomes less and less hardy. Mistakes start over taking the successful copies. We get cancer. We get disease. We eventually die.

BTW - nice post. too bad it was wasted on a person who uses faith to rationalize their entire view point.

 

We age also because the telomeres (end pieces) of the dna are snipped off every time it replicates.  Eventually, we run out of telomeres, and the cells no longer reproduce.  Combine that with the errors, and - death.

I keep trying - knowing if this dude won't listen, maybe someone else will be reading and will follow my links and reasoning and will get educated. 

Thanks for the compliment.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Kapkao wrote:Quit

cj wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

Quit hatin' on my cougar, though. She owes me buttsex, a handjob and some "ewww bugspray!" in her ripe, old age.

 

I ain't nobody's anything.  Sheeze....... And I need an entire case of bugspray at this point.

 

Fuck yeah!

 

I thank you for humoring me, anyhow*.

*I'm not really focused on the handjob part, in case you're still interested. Sticking out tongue

edit2; holy shit I can't spell.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:We age also because

cj wrote:

We age also because the telomeres (end pieces) of the dna are snipped off every time it replicates.  Eventually, we run out of telomeres, and the cells no longer reproduce.  Combine that with the errors, and - death.

I keep trying - knowing if this dude won't listen, maybe someone else will be reading and will follow my links and reasoning and will get educated. 

Thanks for the compliment.

I doubt  I could get more educated by much o' anything bioloy-related at this point in my life, but I thank you for the insight you provide for those who aren't already informed.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

                                                                                             Please explain how the creation process actually works.


 

 

           Dear jackspell, thank you for putting forth your opinion regarding "Intelligent Design".   The Intelligent Designer apparently likes to keep his methods mysterious and inaccessible which unfortunately reduces his supporters to sputtering forth their wild guesses in an effort to baffle those who doubt the validity of a supernaturally created universe.  Certainly puts you at an disadvantage doesn't it ?    You should call it "THE INTELLIGENT MAYBE PERHAPS DESIGNER THEORY"

   Again, many thanks on putting forth such an illuminating and revealing explanation regarding your "theories".  A God who can instantly create the Universe with a proverbial snap of the fingers is certainly the more plausible scenario.


  

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:jackspell wrote:To

cj wrote:

jackspell wrote:

To summarize, the experiment's atmosphere is not what most scientists now believe early earth's to be.

 

Source?  How about a web site from a lab that does real science?  Did you even look at the cool site on bacteria?

 

jackspell wrote:

Even if you were correct about proteins and DNA being synthesized in a lab, which I do not believe you are, all that would show is that an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER was necessary, not natural. And I have given an alternative, God. Just because I lack the knowledge of EXACTLY HOW His mechanism for creation works in no way invalidates Him as an option. Like I demonstrated with my lotto analogy, if I win 5 consecutive Powerball drawings,YOU DON'T HAVE TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW I CHEATED TO MAINTAIN YOUR BELIEF THAT I UNDOUBTEDLY CHEATED. Consequently, you don't have to understand exactly how the designer's mechanism works, to know that it works. And my comparison is apples to apples. You say a house is not going to build itself because it is a creation of man. That is my point! A chromosome has never built itsel because it is the creation of an intelligent designer! Yes amino acids are the building blocks, and they are found in nature. Wood, is the building blocks of the house, and it is also found in nature. But without an intelligent agent, there is no assembly.

 

Your intelligent designer isn't intelligent.  Sorry.  DNA is the biggest mishmash of trash going.  Mistakes galore.  Miscopies, additional sequences not found in the original, entire pieces cut out, crossovers, and yet, the organism still lives, still reproduces and still has viable offspring.  This is not perfection.

And your lotto example is the funniest yet.  If you were truly a PhD in engineering math, you would know that unlikely does not mean impossible.  Is it possible use a fair coin to throw 10 heads in a row?  Sure.  100?  Sure.  A million?  Sure.  It just gets less likely as the number goes up.  Winning the lottery 5 times in a row is possible - just not very likely.  And no indication of cheating.  Now, if this winner were the programmer of the lotto games - we might have a problem, Jackie.

If godly assembly is necessary, explain to me how any embryo - plant, fungi, human, whatever - grows to adulthood.  Does god/s/dess nurture every acorn into an oak tree?  Nudge every spore into a mushroom?  Oversee every amoebic split?  I'd be surprised.  Let's try the laws of thermodynamics, okay?  Energy in the form of light and heat is added to every system on earth from both the sun and the earth's inner core.  This energy is converted into chemical and physical processes - that we understand very well if not perfectly - that cause changes in the state of living and nonliving things.  Including physical growth and evolution.  Not so hard, was it?

Now, ask yourself - "What evidence would cause me to change my mind about evolution?" 

Is the answer nothing?  Doxastic closure is the state you are in, bud.  This leaves you open to any scammer who comes along, recognizes your weaknesses, and takes you for every penny you've got.  Thank your god or your lucky stars I'm too ethical to take advantage.

Oh, and I would drop evolution in a heartbeat if - the universe was proven to be less than 13 odd billion years old; the earth was proven to be less than 4.6 billion years old; we were not genetically related - if only a small percentage - to one - just one - form of life on this planet; there was a fossil of a completely modern critter found in a totally inappropriate geologic formation.  And I could go on with even more scenarios.

Believe in god/s/dess?  Evidence, just give me some replicatable evidence.  Because that is how science works.  If I make a claim, other people had better be able to repeat my experiment and get the same results.  If they can not repeat the experiment and get the same results, it didn't happen.  Which is why belief in god/s/dess is not scientific.  Get god/s/dess to repeat the miracle, get it witnessed, analyzed, measured, and we might have a conversation about the reality of said deity/deities.  I might even agree with you on their existence, if not on their worthiness for worship.

 

On what basis do you make the claim that DNA has "mistakes galore, miscopies, additional sequences not found in the original, entire pieces cut out, crossovers, and yet, the organism still lives, still REPRODUCES AND HAS VIABLE OFFSPRING"? You obviously know nothing about benefits. My youngest daughter was born 2 years ago. We had no indication of any problems throughout the duration of the pregnancy. 30 minutes after she was delivered, she was taken to the nursury. My wife and I were notified minutes later that she was on an ambulance being rushed to a heart specialist. We soon found out she has Turner Syndrome; she is missing a chromosome. We spent 2 weeks in the NICU unit, sleeping in the waiting room after she underwent a balloon procedure to reduce the pressure gradient at her aortic valve. The valve is bicuspid, and a coarctation of her aorta was also compounding the problem. After letting her go home for a month, we then spent another month in ICU after she underwent open heart surgury. Even though the surgury was a success, she will still require another once she is fully grown to replace the valve. If all that is not bad enough, she starts growth hormones this year. Finally, she will NEVER be able to have children. So despite your misguided notion that the majority of mutations do not hinder reproduction or affect having viable offspring, you are dead wrong. There are many other chromosomal abnormalities that have equally negative, if not worse effects.

Furthermore, what is the source of your delusion that you belong in any discussion about organic chemistry or genetics? First, in an earlier post, I explained to you were your mistaken belief lies. You tried to say that there are only 64 different codons, therfore genomes are not that complex. I then educated you further by explaining that the genome is not within the 64 codons, rather it is the SPECIFIC sequence of a gene complex within the base pairs. You answered by saying the sequences were not SPECIFIC. Really? Then you claim that even though longer proteins would have vastly longer odds to make, it isn't hard because YOU COULD JUST KEEP ADDING CODONS. Wow! That's how you think it works? Do you really not realize the proteins are made from chain of amino acids, which are determined ultimately by the SPECIFIC sequence of codons? You think that the exact order of codons is not vastly important? Do you realize that when the amino acid chain is folded into the necessary shape of the protein, it is critical that certain amino acids are in specific locations for attraction and repulsion purposes? Wow.

Also, you undermine the complexity of organic chemistry in the same manner by stating how carbon can only form 4 bonds, and it is impossible to form 64 or only 1. And all this is due to naturalistic law, not randomness. While you are correct about the bond numbers, you fail to understand that carbon does form MORE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS THAN ANY OTHER ELEMENT. Almost 10000000. AND THIS IS ONLY A MINUTE FRACTION OF THE THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE UNDER STANDARD CONDITIONS. It also has several allotropes, each with drastically different physical properties. All of them require enormous amounts of energy to react chemically. The point is, carbon has AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR POSSIBILITIES. It DOES NOT have to become neither ribose nor deoxyribose. And if it does, it in no way is obligated by any law to attach the pentose to a base and become a nucleoside. Finally, there is absolutely no gauarantee that nucleoside will become a nucleotides by attaching to a phosphate, especially while alternating with the ribose millions of times consecutively to form the backbone of the helix of the first living cell.

Yet, life exists. And not because of LAWS OF NATURE, as I clearly demonstrated carbon, as well as all other elements involved, have other possible scenarios. So for anyone who rejects an intelligent designer, the existence of DNA is due to CHANCE. Now, without even taking into account the probabilty that ALL THE COSMOLOGICAL CONDITIONS have to fall into a life-permitting range, the probability for all the elements of DNA to actually be subjected to each other in a manner that will then equate chemically to DNA is absurd. Then, for those millions of base pairs to just so happen to be SPECIFICALLY SEQUENCED IN THE NECESSARY ORDER to ultimately create the required proteins is beyond irrational for anyone who is old enough to realize the tooth fairy isn't the one putting money under there pillow.

Since you asked for a source that does real science to validate my claims about the early atmosphere, here it cometh. What this means is that you can take the Miller-Urey experiment results and throw them in that box that already has all those blurry bigfoot videos in it. Also, here is proof that, according to naturalism, the first living cell was much more complex than you hoped it would be.

Finally, you admit that winning the lottery 5 times, although improbable, is still possible. Okay, tell me the truth, if I didn't work with the lotto company, and won every drawing for a year, would you believe me without question that I did not cheat. Or, would you accuse me of cheating?

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/articles/earth-s-early-atmosphere-an-update/


http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2011/hairy-microbes-1116.html

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

 

 

                                                                                             Please explain how the creation process actually works.


 

 

           Dear jackspell, thank you for putting forth your opinion regarding "Intelligent Design".   The Intelligent Designer apparently likes to keep his methods mysterious and inaccessible which unfortunately reduces his supporters to sputtering forth their wild guesses in an effort to baffle those who doubt the validity of a supernaturally created universe.  Certainly puts you at an disadvantage doesn't it ?    You should call it "THE INTELLIGENT MAYBE PERHAPS DESIGNER THEORY"

   Again, many thanks on putting forth such an illuminating and revealing explanation regarding your "theories".  A God who can instantly create the Universe with a proverbial snap of the fingers is certainly the more plausible scenario.


  

 

Did you miss the part where I said it may have been analogous to the loading of a firecracker? His packing of the powder (matter) and chemical charge (energy) is the setting of the constants and quantities in the universe, then setting the initial expansion in motion. How is this anymore implausible then your explanation? By the way, how about you give us your explanation of how all off space-time, matter, and energy came into existence? I can't wait!

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
...and at the end of the

...and at the end of the day, The Big Invisible Everglorious Magician Himself™ fails to to pass on the secret causative factor behind his creation methods on to his idiot, Bronze Age/Iron Age followers. My, my, my...

Out of curiousity, how does the big bang come to be?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


jackspell
Theist
jackspell's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2012-03-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

jackspell wrote:

Even if you were correct about proteins and DNA being synthesized in a lab, which I do not believe you are, all that would show is that an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER was necessary, not natural. And I have given an alternative, God. Just because I lack the knowledge of EXACTLY HOW His mechanism for creation works in no way invalidates Him as an option. Like I demonstrated with my lotto analogy, if I win 5 consecutive Powerball drawings,YOU DON'T HAVE TO KNOW EXACTLY HOW I CHEATED TO MAINTAIN YOUR BELIEF THAT I UNDOUBTEDLY CHEATED. Consequently, you don't have to understand exactly how the designer's mechanism works, to know that it works. And my comparison is apples to apples. You say a house is not going to build itself because it is a creation of man. That is my point! A chromosome has never built itsel because it is the creation of an intelligent designer! Yes amino acids are the building blocks, and they are found in nature. Wood, is the building blocks of the house, and it is also found in nature. But without an intelligent agent, there is no assembly.

I found this article from 2009 on self replicating RNA. I know it isn't the "entire picture" but it explains a little more of how things might work.

http://www.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

I've said this before and it appears I will continue saying it until some one listens. I do not debate faith.

You work on faith which appears to be below 100% certainty. You stated previously that life forming with out intelligent design was X:Y chance. Even though the number was amazingly long and very slim in chance, it still means that it COULD happen on its own. This means that IT COULD happen with out intervention of an intelligent design.

There is an issue I have with people who have "intelligent design" being their foundation. This foundation is built on assumptions. You for example appear to come from a christian background which means you are influenced by the bible. This means that you already believe in your god of abraham. This means that you have skipped from having to prove that your god exists. You are yet again, using a fallacy to discuss a subject which has no foundation.

 

 

Good! I wouldn't debate faith neither. Since faith is a BELIEF WITHOUT EVIDENCE, that would be stupid. My foundation is not based on assumption. Its based on fact, that has been documented in writing, is textually pure, has been around for 1000's of years, is the eyewitness accounts of many, my own personal experience with God, and arguments that contemporary science CONFIRMS. What is your belief of naturalism based on?

"In this book, they list ten steps in the course of human evolution, each of which is so improbable that before it would have occurred the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have burned up the earth. They estimate the probability of the evolution of the human genome by chance to be on the order of 4∧(360)^110,000, a number which is so huge that to call it astronomical would be a wild understatement. In other words, if evolution did occur, it would have been a miracle, so that evolution is actually evidence for the existence of God”-William Lane Craig