Atheists... how did evolution come into existance?

[james bond]

It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.

A god-of-the-gaps argument. We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it. Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:

A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​

I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure. They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe. If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.

You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.

Urey-Miller didn't fail. It successfully demonstrated that simple molecules can spontaneously combine to form more complex ones.

We both believe that abiogenesis happened, we just differ as to the cause, God or nature. Irrelevant to the ToE.

Not for life or abiogenesis. We can have Alka Seltzer as an experiment to show what you just claimed with actual results.

"Uses of Alka-Seltzer: Used as an antacid to relieve indigestion, or an upset stomach. Soothes insect bites. Unclogs drains. Cleans many house hold items, such as vases, jewelry, and removes burned-on grease from pots and pans."

 

[james bond]

I’ve made the point before that I will offer creationers the method to falsify biological evolution. One way to falsify both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

I was wondering when you were going to come up with that falsification argument.

It's your theory, so you have to use a measuring stick of ToE and common descent to falsify it. Not tell your opponent what to do back up their theory. IOW, you have to show how one can falsify long time needed for evolution to happen. We found that was done when the Earth was estimated to be around 3 billion years old. However, Darwin said it wasn't enough time until someone came up with his long time needed in 1956.

We see microevolution happen all the time and can do it with artificial selection, so does that falsify Darwin's common ancestor and long time? I don't think there is a falsification for long time. We can falsify natural and artificial selection by showing we can't change the family level, but we see that it happens in natural and artificial selection. That's why JBS Haldane and Richard Dawkins came up with Precambrian rabbit and hippo fossils in the Precambrian to falsify fossils in their claimed time chronology.

As to you argument, creationists do not state what would falsify 6,000 year old Earth as it will lead to measuring arguments. We don't really have a valid theory for a young Earth except to show the C14 still remains and that it gives us young Earth ages. However, we do not know how much C14 was there to begin with. Thus, there is no falsification for YEC theory. All we have is a theory based on Biblical events in history.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I mean, just imagine you were the lone Magic Sky Fairy.

God may be alone, but wasn't lonely. He's God so doesn't experience loneliness or horniness like humans. It is said that God made humans for his pleasure.

What makes you think he's the Magic Sky Fairy, i.e. make believe? We couldn't have what we have without the supernatural. Why do you think it's all natural? Oh yeah, some racist and immoral atheist from the past convinced you that you can be as immoral as you want to be short of breaking human laws. That genocide (Planned Parenthood and killing of poor minority babies) and abortion are legal.

Let it all hang out there, big fella. Don't hold back!

 

[Grumblenuts]

Then we will rise above the clouds to meet Jesus when he comes again

So this Jesus hides behind clouds, does he? Nowhere to be found on a clear day?

 

[Hollie]

I’ve made the point before that I will offer creationers the method to falsify biological evolution. One way to falsify both biological evolution and common descent would be to prove that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

I was wondering when you were going to come up with that falsification argument.

It's your theory, so you have to use a measuring stick of ToE and common descent to falsify it. Not tell your opponent what to do back up their theory. IOW, you have to show how one can falsify long time needed for evolution to happen. We found that was done when the Earth was estimated to be around 3 billion years old. However, Darwin said it wasn't enough time until someone came up with his long time needed in 1956.

We see microevolution happen all the time and can do it with artificial selection, so does that falsify Darwin's common ancestor and long time? I don't think there is a falsification for long time. We can falsify natural and artificial selection by showing we can't change the family level, but we see that it happens in natural and artificial selection. That's why JBS Haldane and Richard Dawkins came up with Precambrian rabbit and hippo fossils in the Precambrian to falsify fossils in their claimed time chronology.

As to you argument, creationists do not state what would falsify 6,000 year old Earth as it will lead to measuring arguments. We don't really have a valid theory for a young Earth except to show the C14 still remains and that it gives us young Earth ages. However, we do not know how much C14 was there to begin with. Thus, there is no falsification for YEC theory. All we have is a theory based on Biblical events in history.

I was wondering when you would refute micro, mini and macroevolution with one or more of the simple demonstrations I provided for you. The measuring stick as you describe for demonstrating the fact of biological evolution would include the complimentary sciences of biology, chemistry, paleontology and physics which are all used in the testing and verification of biological change over time.

It’s really a simple matter for ID’iot creationers to 9ffer their evidence for a 6,000 year old planet as one measure to falsify evolution. Please present that evidence.

The ID’iot creationers are biblical literalists who insist that their Gods created the world as per Genesis Chapter 1. No metaphors, no interpolations, nothing allegorical. They pushed to have their creation mythology inserted into public school science classrooms, under the premise of "equal time". The courts realized what they were trying to do (force their particular brand of religion), and killed that idea. Now they are left to an internet presence, pounding their Bibles cybernetically.

 

[james bond]

Then we will rise above the clouds to meet Jesus when he comes again

So this Jesus hides behind clouds, does he? Nowhere to be found on a clear day?

It is said:

"The Rider on a White Horse

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

Jesus is coming soon.

 

[alang1216]

It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.

A god-of-the-gaps argument. We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it. Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:

A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​

I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure. They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe. If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.

You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.

Urey-Miller didn't fail. It successfully demonstrated that simple molecules can spontaneously combine to form more complex ones.

We both believe that abiogenesis happened, we just differ as to the cause, God or nature. Irrelevant to the ToE.

Not for life or abiogenesis. We can have Alka Seltzer as an experiment to show what you just claimed with actual results.

"Uses of Alka-Seltzer: Used as an antacid to relieve indigestion, or an upset stomach. Soothes insect bites. Unclogs drains. Cleans many house hold items, such as vases, jewelry, and removes burned-on grease from pots and pans."

What Urey-Miller did was the opposite of what Alka-Seltzer does. It built up larger molecules from smaller ones.

When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct gas combo in 1983, the brown broth failed to materialize. Instead, the mix created a colorless brew, containing few amino acids. It seemed to refute a long-cherished icon of evolution—and creationists quickly seized on it as supposed evidence of evolution's wobbly foundations.

But Bada's repeat of the experiment—armed with a new insight—seems likely to turn the tables once again.

Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes, James. Your own .. personal .. Jesus is coming .. when hell freezes over, I know. But damn, such a childish, violent mofo!

Meanwhile, that Bada's a REAL badass.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Exclusive Interview: Norman Greenbaum Reveals The True Origin Of “Spirit In The Sky”

Classic Rock Interviews with the Greatest Music Legends of our Time.

www.classicrockhereandnow.com

Ray: Who would have thought that “Spirit in The Sky” would be written and performed by someone of the Jewish faith?
Norman:“Yea, but I’m a writer and I’ve always thought I can write about anything I want to write about. I was into all kinds of music from jug band music to country music. I was taken by Porter Wagoner, he’d wear these snazzy coats that he’d got from Nudie’s in North Hollywood and had a big pompadour. And he was kind of interesting. He had a show on TV and I’d watch it. One day he’s singing this song about a preacher and I said, “Wow that’s a little out of my league to write about preachers and stuff, but I can do it.” And that’s what I did. But it had nothing to do about having a religious background. Many people thought I was tongue- in- cheek and making fun by saying, “Never been a Sinner” but basically I didn’t know any better. I just did it at the top of my head and put music to it that was unbelievable when you think of a spiritual type of song and it was very risky. But as it developed, the producer and I both knew we had something.”
Ray: The song still sounds so clear and crisp even today.
Norman: “We specifically mixed it on small speakers so it would sound good in a car. We were smart enough to know that and I remember having the conversation with Eric the producer saying, “It’s got to sound good in the car.” People drive and they listen to the radio…back then. There were no cell phones you had to stop and make a call, life was way different. The radio in your car was IT! Wherever you went the first thing you did was started your car and then turn on your radio. That was it (one and two) three didn’t matter.”

 

[james bond]

It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.

A god-of-the-gaps argument. We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it. Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:

A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​

I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure. They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe. If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.

You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.

Urey-Miller didn't fail. It successfully demonstrated that simple molecules can spontaneously combine to form more complex ones.

We both believe that abiogenesis happened, we just differ as to the cause, God or nature. Irrelevant to the ToE.

Not for life or abiogenesis. We can have Alka Seltzer as an experiment to show what you just claimed with actual results.

"Uses of Alka-Seltzer: Used as an antacid to relieve indigestion, or an upset stomach. Soothes insect bites. Unclogs drains. Cleans many house hold items, such as vases, jewelry, and removes burned-on grease from pots and pans."

What Urey-Miller did was the opposite of what Alka-Seltzer does. It built up larger molecules from smaller ones.

When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct gas combo in 1983, the brown broth failed to materialize. Instead, the mix created a colorless brew, containing few amino acids. It seemed to refute a long-cherished icon of evolution—and creationists quickly seized on it as supposed evidence of evolution's wobbly foundations.

But Bada's repeat of the experiment—armed with a new insight—seems likely to turn the tables once again.

Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids.

This is one of what I consider the bad and evil parts of the scientific atheism. They have to start life by abiogenesis or else ToE cannot happen. What is bad is that many people will be misled and turn away from God's sacrifice and turn away from Jesus. Thus, any findings will be lapped up and hailed as that which contradicts the Book of Genesis and promote abiogenesis.

Creation scientists know that amino acids are formed in outer space. There are plenty floating out there. However, even with the enormous presence of amino acids out there, it doesn't become proteins due to their atomic structure which causes chirality. IIRC, it takes 23 of the correct amino acids to form a single protein and it takes life to do that. No other chemical processes can do that outside of the cell. Thus, the creator has prevented humans from producing artificial life. Only life begets life.

Moreover, it becomes even more difficult when amino acids are quickly dissolved as shown in Bada's experiment. Bada is one of those atheist scientists who want to be published in Nature or Science and I suppose he succeeded in that. If he were the engineering type, then he would've tried to make money from it, i.e. be practical, but no one is going to pay him money for what he produced.

I will accept you are right about Alka-Seltzer, but an engineer Bada would've been able to make money with that discovery.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

evolution is the big lie!

god created the universe! (my god, not yours!)

so the whole universe belongs to my god...

who has gven it to me....

so i get to make all the laws and rules....

your rights come from my god...he has asked me to tell you what those rights are....

all morals, rights, laws must be biblically based....

welcome to trumps christian evangelical America!

 

[alang1216]

It was already pointed out that Urey-Miller failed due to wrong assumptions of primal atmospheric gases. You can't just have any chemicals. It has to convert amino acids to protein. Instead, we found only living organisms can do this, so abiogenesis doesn't happen.

A god-of-the-gaps argument. We don't know exactly how it happened so God must have done it. Shakey ground to draw your line as all previous gaps have shown to be ephemeral:

A key player has been John Sutherland of the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, UK. In 2009 he demonstrated that two of the four building blocks of RNA form from simple carbon-based chemicals, if they are subjected to simple treatments like being bathed in ultraviolet radiation. He has since shown that the same starter chemicals, given subtly different treatments, can also become the building blocks of proteins, or of the fatty lipids that make up the outer membranes of cells.​

I used no God as the cause of Urey-Miller's failure. They were wrong in their assumptions of the gases in the primal universe. If I said, God wouldn't allow amino acids to happen would be a God of the gaps argument.

You complain because without a beginning to life ToE didn't happen.

Urey-Miller didn't fail. It successfully demonstrated that simple molecules can spontaneously combine to form more complex ones.

We both believe that abiogenesis happened, we just differ as to the cause, God or nature. Irrelevant to the ToE.

Not for life or abiogenesis. We can have Alka Seltzer as an experiment to show what you just claimed with actual results.

"Uses of Alka-Seltzer: Used as an antacid to relieve indigestion, or an upset stomach. Soothes insect bites. Unclogs drains. Cleans many house hold items, such as vases, jewelry, and removes burned-on grease from pots and pans."

What Urey-Miller did was the opposite of what Alka-Seltzer does. It built up larger molecules from smaller ones.

When Miller repeated the experiment using the correct gas combo in 1983, the brown broth failed to materialize. Instead, the mix created a colorless brew, containing few amino acids. It seemed to refute a long-cherished icon of evolution—and creationists quickly seized on it as supposed evidence of evolution's wobbly foundations.

But Bada's repeat of the experiment—armed with a new insight—seems likely to turn the tables once again.

Bada discovered that the reactions were producing chemicals called nitrites, which destroy amino acids as quickly as they form. They were also turning the water acidic—which prevents amino acids from forming. Yet primitive Earth would have contained iron and carbonate minerals that neutralized nitrites and acids. So Bada added chemicals to the experiment to duplicate these functions. When he reran it, he still got the same watery liquid as Miller did in 1983, but this time it was chock-full of amino acids.

This is one of what I consider the bad and evil parts of the scientific atheism. They have to start life by abiogenesis or else ToE cannot happen. What is bad is that many people will be misled and turn away from God's sacrifice and turn away from Jesus. Thus, any findings will be lapped up and hailed as that which contradicts the Book of Genesis and promote abiogenesis.

Creation scientists know that amino acids are formed in outer space. There are plenty floating out there. However, even with the enormous presence of amino acids out there, it doesn't become proteins due to their atomic structure which causes chirality. IIRC, it takes 23 of the correct amino acids to form a single protein and it takes life to do that. No other chemical processes can do that outside of the cell. Thus, the creator has prevented humans from producing artificial life. Only life begets life.

Moreover, it becomes even more difficult when amino acids are quickly dissolved as shown in Bada's experiment. Bada is one of those atheist scientists who want to be published in Nature or Science and I suppose he succeeded in that. If he were the engineering type, then he would've tried to make money from it, i.e. be practical, but no one is going to pay him money for what he produced.

I will accept you are right about Alka-Seltzer, but an engineer Bada would've been able to make money with that discovery.

Science is neither bad nor evil if it speaks the truth. That truth concerns only the natural world. If there is a supernatural component of the world, you can't expect science to study it.

I wonder if you would prefer us not to study the natural world since it may conflict with your view of the supernatural one? What I've never understood is that if you believe God created this world, understanding it is the best way to know Him. You may feel more comfortable with tales that have been handed down through the generations but if you don't accept the world as it is you don't accept God.

 

[james bond]

Science is neither bad nor evil if it speaks the truth. That truth concerns only the natural world. If there is a supernatural component of the world, you can't expect science to study it.

I brought up scientific atheism. It assumes things right off the bat such as no God. Thus, creation scientists who were allowed to participate in peer reviews were eliminated since the 1850s. It also was eliminated from being taught in public schools. Thus, what you only think as the truth isn't so. Science should be about disagreements and let the best theory rise to the top. It doesn't anymore, so creation scientists and creationists are relegated to forums such as this.

What I stated about creation should be considered by people such as yourself and atheist scientists, but it isn't. We have abiogenesis vs Genesis, but all you do is try to show abiogenesis. That is the bad and evil part as it is tied to your eternal spiritual life. Our real life is spirit as our physical life dies. The spirit life lives forever. However, you believe death is the the end and abiogenesis is the beginning. In that way, our science and religion go their opposite ways.

I think that sums it up.

I wonder if you would prefer us not to study the natural world since it may conflict with your view of the supernatural one? What I've never understood is that if you believe God created this world, understanding it is the best way to know Him. You may feel more comfortable with tales that have been handed down through the generations but if you don't accept the world as it is you don't accept God.

Where did I say or infer that???!!!???!!! What you assume is furthest from the truth as creationists study the natural world, too. Basically, we both have the same facts and information. Where we diverge is due to the presuppositions that we have. Our world is natural. The supernatural is mostly affected by Satan. God has an effect, too, but one has to have faith first. Then they should see how Satan affects our world and how God does, too. Otherwise, it's mostly Satan and he remains hidden as that is his choice.

I'm not comfortable with tales handed down from generations. We know that changes as it is passed down. What we know is that the Bible is God breathed and has been transcribed as the truth. If that isn't true, then why would I waste my time? I have faith and let God come into my life. The Book of Genesis isn't religion so much as it is science. Today's science and future science will back it up. The falsification of it would be to find a contradiction. Just one would do it.

Jesus himself was tried before his own people and before Pontius Pilate. Pilate, who represented Roman society (secular) at the time, could not find Jesus guilty of any crime, but the Jewish leaders wouldn't allow it. They had already decided thru a biased trial of their own that he was guilty of lies of being the Messiah. It came down to what is truth?



Before that was his trial before the Sanhedrin.



Peter is the dark, bearded afraid man in the background.

 

[alang1216]

I brought up scientific atheism. It assumes things right off the bat such as no God.

Not true, it only acknowledges we can't study God scientifically. Can He be proven or falsified? Can we devise an experiment that would reveal the nature of God? The answers are all NO. Your faith may tell you that the Bible is proof of God but that can not be confirmed experimentally. Faith is the opposite of science.

 

[abu afak]

Be specific.
I’ll start by stating a crazy idea that explosions do not result in complex order.

Ahh.
Yet more 'God of the Gaps' 'logic.'
(if we don't know it must be god)

Neanderthal to his Wife:
""How is there lightning if there is no god.""
""How does fire come from wood?""

You ******* stupid simpleton.

`

 

[james bond]

I brought up scientific atheism. It assumes things right off the bat such as no God.

Not true, it only acknowledges we can't study God scientifically. Can He be proven or falsified? Can we devise an experiment that would reveal the nature of God? The answers are all NO. Your faith may tell you that the Bible is proof of God but that can not be confirmed experimentally. Faith is the opposite of science.

That's a lie. The Bible has history to back it up, too. I didn't post the movie clips for my health.

Your science is based on faith in no God. What about letting the creation scientists do peer review?

ETA: You could not provide falsification for abiogenesis so according to Karl Popper, it is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

 

[Hollie]

Then we will rise above the clouds to meet Jesus when he comes again

So this Jesus hides behind clouds, does he? Nowhere to be found on a clear day?

It is said:

View attachment 416312

"The Rider on a White Horse

Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords."

View attachment 416313

Jesus is coming soon.

When?

 

[alang1216]

The Bible has history to back it up, too. I didn't post the movie clips for my health.

Using the Bible to prove the Bible? Sorry, that is a non-starter.

Your science is based on faith in no God. What about letting the creation scientists do peer review?

Science is the absence of faith. If you can't demonstrate or provide independently verifiable evidence for something you're not doing science.

I think creation scientists don't do peer review because they can't follow the rules of science. They might say unscientific things like "Your science is based on faith in no God".

ETA: You could not provide falsification for abiogenesis so according to Karl Popper, it is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

There is no need to falsify abiogenesis since it happened and everyone agrees it happened. It is only the mechanism that is in dispute.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Feeling unknown
And you're all alone
Flesh and bone
By the telephone
Lift up the receiver
I'll make you a believer
Take second best
Put me to the test
Things on your chest
You need to confess
I will deliver
You know I'm a forgiver
Reach out and touch faith
Reach out and touch faith
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who cares
Your own personal Jesus
Someone to hear your prayers
Someone who's there

 

[james bond]

When?

He himself said, “He who testifies to these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming soon’" Revelation 22:20 Apostle John replied, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus.” Revelation 22:20. That was written 2,000 years ago, so Christians wonder what did Jesus mean by soon. Even the apostles thought he was coming back in their lifetimes.

AFAIK, the soonest that was predicted by a reputable source is 2060 by Sir Isaac Newton, but Christians have to be ready if it happens tomorrow. I thought it would be after our passing, but now I have change my mindset and think it could be tomorrow.