This is for all the atheists here.

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by RWNJ, Jan 12, 2018 at 7:44 PM.

  1. RWNJ
    Offline

    RWNJ Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,661
    Thanks Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Ratings:
    +2,091
    This is the best explanation I've seen on the impossibility of abiogenesis. Please check it out.

    And before you try to discredit the source, the guy who wrote this teaches biology at the college level. I'd say he knows what he's talking about.

    1.3 The Origin of Life: DNA and Protein
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    63,197
    Thanks Received:
    4,056
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +14,148
    What college? If it’s a religious school fuck off
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. sealybobo
    Offline

    sealybobo Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2008
    Messages:
    63,197
    Thanks Received:
    4,056
    Trophy Points:
    1,845
    Location:
    Michigan
    Ratings:
    +14,148
    Has this been peer reviewed? Has this gone through the scientific process? What does this prove?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    55,995
    Thanks Received:
    6,661
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +16,522
    No, he does not. He starts out with an assumption, then tries to fit the information to that assumption. I would never take a class from someone like that. They are not scientists. And here is a far better site;
    TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
     
  5. WinterBorn
    Offline

    WinterBorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,922
    Thanks Received:
    3,305
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +10,436
    I find it hilarious that this sort of posts repeatedly comes from the same guy who whined that atheists are always trying to convince people God does not exist.
     
    • Funny and Agree!! Funny and Agree!! x 2
    • Winner Winner x 2
  6. alang1216
    Offline

    alang1216 Pragmatist

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,378
    Thanks Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +965
    He made a fundamental assumption, that DNA was the starting point of life, without any evidence. That is no better than creationists who say a cell is too complex to have just happened. Whatever was the basis of that first life, it is long since gone but had BILLIONS of years to evolve into the DNA-based forms we know today.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    30,889
    Thanks Received:
    3,670
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +8,264
    Here is a typical Creationist LIE from the link by your lying author:
    "What do I mean by “wrong starting materials”? Miller left out oxygen. Why? Because of the scientific evidence? No. He left it out because he knew oxygen would destroy the very molecules he was trying to produce."

    Actually Miller left out oxygen precisely because of scientific evidence!!! There was no free oxygen for the first half of Earth's existence!!!!!
    Creationists, like all professional liars, lie to your level of ignorance.

    Article: Earth Without Oxygen

    Oxygen makes up about one-fifth the volume of Earth's atmosphere today and is a central element of life as we know it. But that wasn't always the case. Oxygen, although always present in compounds in Earth's interior, atmosphere, and oceans, did not begin to accumulate in the atmosphere as oxygen gas (O2) until well into the planet's history.

    Snip/

    If Earth had water, it must have had an atmosphere, and if it had an atmosphere, it must have had a climate. What was Earth's early atmosphere made of? Nitrogen (N2), certainly. Nitrogen makes up the bulk of today's atmosphere and likely has been around since the beginning. Water vapor (H2O), probably from volcanic emissions. Carbon dioxide (CO2), also emitted by volcanic eruptions, which were plentiful at that time. And methane (CH4), generated inside the Earth and possibly also by methane-producing microbes that thrived on and in the seafloor, as they do today.

    Carbon dioxide, water vapor, and methane played an important role in Earth's subsequent development. Four billion years ago, the Sun was 30 percent dimmer, and therefore colder, than it is today. Under such conditions, Earth's water should have been frozen, yet clearly it wasn't. The water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane acted as greenhouse gases, trapping heat and insulating the early Earth during a critical period in its development.

    Of oxygen, meanwhile, the early atmosphere held barely a trace. What did exist likely formed when solar radiation split airborne molecules of water (H2O) into hydrogen (H2) and oxygen (O2). Hydrogen, a lightweight gas, would have risen above the atmosphere and slowly been lost to space. The heavier oxygen gas, left behind, would have quickly reacted with atmospheric gases such as methane or with minerals on Earth's surface and been drawn out of the atmosphere and back into the crust and mantle. Oxygen could only begin to accumulate in the atmosphere if it was being produced faster than it was being removed'—in other words, if something else was also producing it.

    That something was life. Although the fossil evidence is sketchy, methane-producing microbes may have inhabited Earth as long ago as 3.8 billion years. By 2.7 billion years ago, a new kind of life had established itself: photosynthetic microbes called cyanobacteria, which were capable of using the Sun's energy to convert carbon dioxide and water into food with oxygen gas as a waste product. They lived in shallow seas, protected from full exposure to the Sun's harmful radiation. (To learn more about these organisms and the fossil evidence for them, watch the accompanying video "Early Fossil Life.")
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. RWNJ
    Offline

    RWNJ Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2015
    Messages:
    2,661
    Thanks Received:
    377
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Ratings:
    +2,091
    All life on this planet has DNA, so it's a valid assumption. And yet YOU make the assumption that DNA was NOT the first life, without any evidence. How does that make you any different? What was the first life? Well, golly gee. Scientists haven't got a clue. Even if his 'assumption' is incorrect, the rest of what he said is based on sound science. So why don't you address that? Let me guess. It because you can't. LOLOL! Next contestant, please.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
    Last edited: Jan 13, 2018 at 11:05 AM
  9. alang1216
    Offline

    alang1216 Pragmatist

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,378
    Thanks Received:
    308
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +965
    I look around and all I see are cars. Is it reasonable for me to think man has always traveled by car or is it reasonable to assume that transportation was simpler in the past.

    I confess I didn't read the whole long article but if there is something specific you think is irrefutable, let me know.
     
  10. WinterBorn
    Offline

    WinterBorn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    Messages:
    20,922
    Thanks Received:
    3,305
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Location:
    Atlanta
    Ratings:
    +10,436
    A virus does not contain DNA. RNA can do the same job in simpler life forms. There is even research showing that PNAs can do it as well.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1

Share This Page