Does God Exist?

[ding]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

.
you really have a reading comprehension - problem ...

throughout the development of physiology from the beginning there became an inseparable spiritual content that guided the host's evolutionary progression.

So rocks are spiritual beings?

I think you have been reading too much Tom Robbins.

So rocks are spiritual beings?

.
in suspension that is neither here nor there, their evolution is not apparent.

metaphysical physiology disappears when its spiritual content is removed - is the proof of their origin and presently their inseparability.

Well if subatomic particles have spiritual content so would rocks.

Well if subatomic particles have spiritual content so would rocks.

.
that's why the elements were considered the first forms of life evolving from subatomic particles - the living universe - everything in the universe is alive in some form or another.

Like rocks?

 

[LittleNipper]

the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit.

No.

Debate over.

No way to tell who is right. Debate over.

Create a living thing from a mineral------ any mineral. I'll let you choose.

 

[LittleNipper]

DNA is a language. Language is always the result of some form of INTELLIGENCE and n ot random chance. Therefore, DNA proves that a Intelligent Creator exists.

 

[Newtonian]

DNA is a language. Language is always the result of some form of INTELLIGENCE and n ot random chance. Therefore, DNA proves that a Intelligent Creator exists.

So true. It is what I meant when posting about the difference between statistical molecules and informational molecules.

Interestingly, Psalms 139:16 refers to God's book determining the days when body parts of an embryo are formed before any of those body parts exist!

Does God Really Know You? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

wol.jw.org

"16. (a) In what way does Psalm 139:15, 16 highlight the penetrating power of God’s vision? (b) Why should this be encouraging to us?

16 Then, emphasizing the penetrating power of God’s vision, the psalmist adds: “My bones were not hidden from you when I was made in secret, when I was woven in the lowest parts of the earth [evidently a poetic reference to his mother’s womb but with an allusion to Adam’s creation from the dust]. Your eyes saw even the embryo of me, and in your book all its parts were down in writing, as regards the days when they [the body parts] were formed and there was not yet one [distinct body part] among them.” (Psalm 139:15, 16)"

 

[rightwinger]

The short answer: No. We're born, we live, we die. That's it. There is no intelligence controlling the universe.

Life sucks, then you die

 

[Newtonian]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

Not the mention interfering cross reactions which dead end potential pathways to amino acids and polypeptides. Ironically, water (H2O) is one of those reactions - it destroys all sorts of molecules chemical evolutionists assert - for example HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid - a reason why formic acid, not amino acids, is the primary chemical reaction product proportion in Miller type origin of life synthesis experiments.

Specifically, these hydrolysis (reactions with water) reactions include:

1. HCN to Cyanogen (C2N2) + H2O yields cyanoformamide (C2H2N2O) + H2O yields ethanediamide (C2H4N2O2)

2. HCN to dicyanamide (C2N3) + H2O yields cyanourea (C2H3N3O) + H2O yields Biuret (C2H5N3O2 )

3. HCN to Cyanamide (CH2N2) + H2O yields Urea (CO(NH2)2 = CH4N2O = NH2CONH2)

4. HCN to Cyanamide (CH2N2) + H2O yields carbodiimide (RN=C=NR.) + H2O yields Urea

[Note: The carbodiimide dicyclohexylcarbodiimide (C13H22N2 ) is used in peptide synthesis,"]

5. HCN + H2O yields formamide (CH3NO) + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH = CH₂O₂)

6. HCN + H2O yields formamidine (CH4N2 ) + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH = CH2O2)

7. HCN to Cyanoacetylene (C3HN) + H2O yields Cyanoacetaldehide (C3H3NO).

Do any of you know of any chemical evolutionists who reveal any of these 7 chemical reactions?

 

[Hollie]

DNA is a language. Language is always the result of some form of INTELLIGENCE and n ot random chance. Therefore, DNA proves that a Intelligent Creator exists.

DNA is not language. It is strings of proteins.

 

[BreezeWood]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

Not the mention interfering cross reactions which dead end potential pathways to amino acids and polypeptides. Ironically, water (H2O) is one of those reactions - it destroys all sorts of molecules chemical evolutionists assert - for example HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid - a reason why formic acid, not amino acids, is the primary chemical reaction product proportion in Miller type origin of life synthesis experiments.

Specifically, these hydrolysis (reactions with water) reactions include:

1. HCN to Cyanogen (C2N2) + H2O yields cyanoformamide (C2H2N2O) + H2O yields ethanediamide (C2H4N2O2)

2. HCN to dicyanamide (C2N3) + H2O yields cyanourea (C2H3N3O) + H2O yields Biuret (C2H5N3O2 )

3. HCN to Cyanamide (CH2N2) + H2O yields Urea (CO(NH2)2 = CH4N2O = NH2CONH2)

4. HCN to Cyanamide (CH2N2) + H2O yields carbodiimide (RN=C=NR.) + H2O yields Urea

[Note: The carbodiimide dicyclohexylcarbodiimide (C13H22N2 ) is used in peptide synthesis,"]

5. HCN + H2O yields formamide (CH3NO) + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH = CH₂O₂)

6. HCN + H2O yields formamidine (CH4N2 ) + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH = CH2O2)

7. HCN to Cyanoacetylene (C3HN) + H2O yields Cyanoacetaldehide (C3H3NO).

Do any of you know of any chemical evolutionists who reveal any of these 7 chemical reactions?

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

Not the mention interfering cross reactions which dead end potential pathways to amino acids and polypeptides.

Specifically, these hydrolysis (reactions with water) reactions include:

in Miller type origin of life synthesis experiments.

Do any of you know of any chemical evolutionists who reveal any of these 7 chemical reactions?

.
your obsession w/ the miller experiment is without merit - unless they employ a spiritual content to the host they are using to create life they are not replicating the means for life's development on planet Earth.

their eliminating the obstacles you claim exist would be to eventually give rise to a physiological substance - something a sane person would find as an extremely unwise pursuit.

what exactly are you trying to create, newtonian.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The short answer: No. We're born, we live, we die. That's it. There is no intelligence controlling the universe.

The truthful answer is yes. God's existence is proven more by the fanaticism of unbelievers than all the scientific evidence ever collected. Thomas Jefferson, who the non-believers falsely claim as one of their own once remarked: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Apparently the existence of God threatens you and your personal agenda. Otherwise, it wouldn't make a difference and you would never have started this thread. There are other things to fret over in this life. Unbelievers want to force their "non-belief" onto others to the point that they will use force, demagogue the issue by using the worst interpretations (i.e. Eve never ate an apple nor had a conversation with a snake); start petty arguments on discussion boards wherein they lose any pretend debate, but try to claim they "won" by having board trolls and their sockpuppets post hundreds of idiotic posts that are easily refuted, but unbelievers hold to that maxim that it is easier to believe a lie that is told a thousand times. They're still lying - lying to themselves and lying to those they hope to convert. They would do well to have some serious introspection and ask themselves what their end game is in starting the argument.

In many instances, these people think God let them down personally due to bad interpretations of the Bible, putting their faith in sinners, and / or relying on organized religion for the answers. I see these kinds of threads as pleas for help by desperate people that want someone to prove to them the obvious.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The better question is: What benefit is in a belief in God?

The benefit is believing in Jesus as our Savior means you're not an atheist. That means you'll receive not only short-term happiness, but long-term joy. Otherwise, you end up as an unhappy negative person like our OP.

Belief can also mean that you are an easy mark for fake holy men with all too earthly agendas. It's apparently like walking a minefield to have faith and be appropirately skeptical of con-men with God in their mouths and the devil in their hearts.

So you think misguided non-believers are supposed to go out and save those who may be duped by the prophets for profit? Who, exactly, appointed the non-believers to be the social do gooders?

 

[james bond]

Life sucks, then you die

No. Life sucks for you, then you die, sleep for a bit, and then you suffer forever.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Create a living thing from a mineral------ any mineral. I'll let you choose.

A stupid request. Name one living thing made of minerals. Name one scientist that says early life was made of minerals. You cant, and your demand is absurd and irrelevant.

Every time you open your mouth, you announce to the world that you know less than nothing about evolution. Why do you even comment on it?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The better question is: What benefit is in a belief in God?

The benefit is believing in Jesus as our Savior means you're not an atheist. That means you'll receive not only short-term happiness, but long-term joy. Otherwise, you end up as an unhappy negative person like our OP.

Belief can also mean that you are an easy mark for fake holy men with all too earthly agendas. It's apparently like walking a minefield to have faith and be appropirately skeptical of con-men with God in their mouths and the devil in their hearts.

So you think misguided non-believers are supposed to go out and save those who may be duped by the prophets for profit? Who, exactly, appointed the non-believers to be the social do gooders?

Who needs to appoint them? Who appointed you the decider of who appoints whom?

This decision is based on morality and ethics, not magical nonsense. Maybe thats why you dont get it?

 

[ding]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

Not the mention interfering cross reactions which dead end potential pathways to amino acids and polypeptides. Ironically, water (H2O) is one of those reactions - it destroys all sorts of molecules chemical evolutionists assert - for example HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid - a reason why formic acid, not amino acids, is the primary chemical reaction product proportion in Miller type origin of life synthesis experiments.

Specifically, these hydrolysis (reactions with water) reactions include:

1. HCN to Cyanogen (C2N2) + H2O yields cyanoformamide (C2H2N2O) + H2O yields ethanediamide (C2H4N2O2)

2. HCN to dicyanamide (C2N3) + H2O yields cyanourea (C2H3N3O) + H2O yields Biuret (C2H5N3O2 )

3. HCN to Cyanamide (CH2N2) + H2O yields Urea (CO(NH2)2 = CH4N2O = NH2CONH2)

4. HCN to Cyanamide (CH2N2) + H2O yields carbodiimide (RN=C=NR.) + H2O yields Urea

[Note: The carbodiimide dicyclohexylcarbodiimide (C13H22N2 ) is used in peptide synthesis,"]

5. HCN + H2O yields formamide (CH3NO) + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH = CH₂O₂)

6. HCN + H2O yields formamidine (CH4N2 ) + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH = CH2O2)

7. HCN to Cyanoacetylene (C3HN) + H2O yields Cyanoacetaldehide (C3H3NO).

Do any of you know of any chemical evolutionists who reveal any of these 7 chemical reactions?

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

Not the mention interfering cross reactions which dead end potential pathways to amino acids and polypeptides.

Specifically, these hydrolysis (reactions with water) reactions include:

in Miller type origin of life synthesis experiments.

Do any of you know of any chemical evolutionists who reveal any of these 7 chemical reactions?

.
your obsession w/ the miller experiment is without merit - unless they employ a spiritual content to the host they are using to create life they are not replicating the means for life's development on planet Earth.

their eliminating the obstacles you claim exist would be to eventually give rise to a physiological substance - something a sane person would find as an extremely unwise pursuit.

what exactly are you trying to create, newtonian.

I never mentioned the miller experiment, Einstein.

 

[Hollie]

The short answer: No. We're born, we live, we die. That's it. There is no intelligence controlling the universe.

The truthful answer is yes. God's existence is proven more by the fanaticism of unbelievers than all the scientific evidence ever collected. Thomas Jefferson, who the non-believers falsely claim as one of their own once remarked: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Apparently the existence of God threatens you and your personal agenda. Otherwise, it wouldn't make a difference and you would never have started this thread. There are other things to fret over in this life. Unbelievers want to force their "non-belief" onto others to the point that they will use force, demagogue the issue by using the worst interpretations (i.e. Eve never ate an apple nor had a conversation with a snake); start petty arguments on discussion boards wherein they lose any pretend debate, but try to claim they "won" by having board trolls and their sockpuppets post hundreds of idiotic posts that are easily refuted, but unbelievers hold to that maxim that it is easier to believe a lie that is told a thousand times. They're still lying - lying to themselves and lying to those they hope to convert. They would do well to have some serious introspection and ask themselves what their end game is in starting the argument.

In many instances, these people think God let them down personally due to bad interpretations of the Bible, putting their faith in sinners, and / or relying on organized religion for the answers. I see these kinds of threads as pleas for help by desperate people that want someone to prove to them the obvious.

An odd notion to suggest that your gods' existence is proven because non-believers don't believe,

Therefore, Krishna is proven because you don't believe in Krishna.

Odin is thus proven.... well you made the argument. Enjoy.

 

[Hollie]

Life sucks, then you die

View attachment 341638

No. Life sucks for you, then you die, sleep for a bit, and then you suffer forever.

Religions have had some success at threatening / scaring the young and the gullible with the use of threats and intimidation. Why do you feel the need to be an accomplice to threats and intimidation? Is belief in your gods a matter to be imposed by such appalling behavior?

 

[Newtonian]

Your link is on themodynamics, not chemistry. I was not posting on the section on thermodynamics. Have you found any errors Thaxton et al made on chemistry?

Much better. I've found a fundamental logic error.

He shows that a 1952 experiment wasn't good enough, and thus declares evolution must be impossible without divine guidance. The problem there is incorrectoy assuming that the Mille experiment was the final word on the matter. It wasn't. The Miller experiment is obsolete. It didn't even use the right atmospheric as a starting point. Thus, Thaxton's supposed debunking is obsolete.

Can you explain why most peer reviewed scientific journals do not give the actual chemical reaction product proportions in MIller's famous experiment?

You tell us. Don't ask me to explain your theories.

I suggest you look at more modern prebiotic chemistry theories. For example, we now know primitive earth contained iron and carbonites that would have neutralized acids, so a formic acid buildup wouldn't have been an issue.

Inaccurate post - try reading my posts more carefully. So, can you link to your theory about carbonites? Did you mean carbonates which were deposited by the geologic carbon cycle?

Definitions of Carbonites here:

Definition of CARBONITE

a blasting explosive varying greatly in formula but containing among its ingredients a carbonaceous substance (as oak bark), a nitrate, and now usually nitroglycerin; a natural coke usually resulting from contact of coal deposits with igneous rock intrusions… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Or did you mean this definition:

What is Carbonite? - Definition from WhatIs.com

Carbonite provides cloud backup services to consumers and small to medium-sized businesses. Files can be accessed through a computer or mobile device.

searchdatabackup.techtarget.com

Excerpt:

"Carbonite Inc. is an online backup company in Boston. Founded in 2005, Carbonite sells cloud backup to consumers"

Ah yes, life on earth was created after the clouds went back up - See Genesis chapter 1.

OK, I learned a new one! Cloud back up!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

Btw - I have a sense of humor!

.

7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

those waters ...

....

a question earlier in response to your reply the water was from Earth ... the above implying the universe was an ocean and our planet was placed inside a bubble the boundaries being heaven, not much different than the tortoise "shell". seems they thought the blue sky was water.

your disinformation does prove, humor is in the eye of the beholder.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

But it is interesting that chemical evolutionists often refer to how large our universe is and that therefore the unlikely chain of chemical reactions required for protein synthesis becomes likely somewhere at sometime.

The problem is that while our universe has been calculated to have a mass of 10^79 amu (atomic mass units) - this is NOT all a primordial soup favorable for amino acid synthesis. In fact, there isn't even any geological evidence such as 'soup' ever existed on earth!

Most of the universe is made up of stars - clearly no amino acid synthesis can occur within stars.

Oh, and water is actually an enemy of amino acid synthesis from a soup containing HCN as a starter molecule for chemical reaction pathways to amino acids. One of many reactions:

HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH or CH2O2).

Btw - you quote a Bible translation that I do not prefer - not sure whose post you are quoting from.

Weird response. Of course, the universe is not water - where did you get such a belief from?

.
a response to your lack of one -

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

again, those waters ... its your belief not mine.

View attachment 336152

primordial Earth.

Venus is a new planet. Keep watching it for generations, it will become similar to earth.

Care to elaborate?

How do you propose the CO2 greenhouse atmosphere be returned to carbonates in the crust of Venus? There can be no geologic carbon cycle without oceans of liquid water - how do you get oceans of liquid water on Venus given the heat on the surface of the planet?

You think the sun will cool and solar radiation will cool and that Venus would therefore cool? I doubt you will find any scientist who considers that possible/tenable - most actually think Venus will be swallowed up by our sun during its postulated entry into red giant phase.

Those are good questions.

I don't propose anything, but I expect Venus eventually will cool off. The slowing process of cooling is -between other factors- caused by the slow rotation in that planet. (I have mentioned before the "lemonade stirring" as a method for other phenomena to be accomplished as well)

The first spacecrafts sent to Venus decades ago detected "snow" in its upper atmosphere. Even the ancient people said that Venus was a planet with " a tail". Probably gases or dust/particles coming out from that planet somehow. The trapped high temperature in Venus inside a cold upper atmosphere is like hot coffee inside a thermos mug, eventually the heat will be overcome and the coffee will cool off.

Point is, that the current status of Venus today is very similar to the visioned status of earth as it was in its past, because whatever the formation theory you might apply for the formation of our planet, earth was hot inside and outside (surface) at its very beginning.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

And, by the way, if the Sun reaches a red giant phase, then the Sun will respect no one and even Jupiter might be swallowed. But, of course, pulling or repelling of the planets by a red giant sun won't be just because an increased size. We don't really know how such scenario will become to be. We can speculate a lot, but can't predict anything.

I do not expect either that Venus or other planet might cause life like on earth, because life in our planet has its own DNA. If life arises in other planets, it might have a different DNA.

.
having evolved on planet Earth would give no reason to believe the same occurrence will not happen under the same conditions anywhere in the universe.

not sure the dna is such a question as why what evolved on Earth relies on an outside source similar to itself for nutrients to survive - seems the spiritual component might be more alien than the physiology. a physiology sustainable by absorption of the elements. not eating a cow.

Life didn't evolved on earth.

Evolution is not the process.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

However, the "spiritual component" expression is a very well made description. I like it.

It appears you want to "impose" the same kind of life on earth in other worlds having that you yourself have not a single idea of how life was formed. I guess that is the kind of obfuscation many people suffer when they try to find life somewhere in the universe.

.
physiology is not so hard to comprehend -

the first life were the elements -

View attachment 340758

they combined to form molecules -

View attachment 340763

molecules formed compounds - inorganic ... organic

View attachment 340765

the organic compounds create physiology - single cell being

View attachment 340766

somewhere perhaps at the very beginning w/ the elements a spiritual content (metaphysical) became involved and guided the process and made the decisions that eventually evolved into the physiology associated with living beings.

yes there is evolution - everything evolves not everything has a guidance, the guidance must be incorporated in any experiment meant to create an initial life form - the spiritual content is what kept the host together to progress through the building process.

* did the miller experiment "fix" conditions to make them work - that is how they will succeed - mimicking the initial process.

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

Not the mention interfering cross reactions which dead end potential pathways to amino acids and polypeptides. Ironically, water (H2O) is one of those reactions - it destroys all sorts of molecules chemical evolutionists assert - for example HCN + H2O yields formamide + H2O yields formic acid - a reason why formic acid, not amino acids, is the primary chemical reaction product proportion in Miller type origin of life synthesis experiments.

Specifically, these hydrolysis (reactions with water) reactions include:

1. HCN to Cyanogen (C2N2) + H2O yields cyanoformamide (C2H2N2O) + H2O yields ethanediamide (C2H4N2O2)

2. HCN to dicyanamide (C2N3) + H2O yields cyanourea (C2H3N3O) + H2O yields Biuret (C2H5N3O2 )

3. HCN to Cyanamide (CH2N2) + H2O yields Urea (CO(NH2)2 = CH4N2O = NH2CONH2)

4. HCN to Cyanamide (CH2N2) + H2O yields carbodiimide (RN=C=NR.) + H2O yields Urea

[Note: The carbodiimide dicyclohexylcarbodiimide (C13H22N2 ) is used in peptide synthesis,"]

5. HCN + H2O yields formamide (CH3NO) + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH = CH₂O₂)

6. HCN + H2O yields formamidine (CH4N2 ) + H2O yields formic acid (HCOOH = CH2O2)

7. HCN to Cyanoacetylene (C3HN) + H2O yields Cyanoacetaldehide (C3H3NO).

Do any of you know of any chemical evolutionists who reveal any of these 7 chemical reactions?

You skipped the whole section on the sequence of folding.

Not the mention interfering cross reactions which dead end potential pathways to amino acids and polypeptides.

Specifically, these hydrolysis (reactions with water) reactions include:

in Miller type origin of life synthesis experiments.

Do any of you know of any chemical evolutionists who reveal any of these 7 chemical reactions?

.
your obsession w/ the miller experiment is without merit - unless they employ a spiritual content to the host they are using to create life they are not replicating the means for life's development on planet Earth.

their eliminating the obstacles you claim exist would be to eventually give rise to a physiological substance - something a sane person would find as an extremely unwise pursuit.

what exactly are you trying to create, newtonian.

I never mentioned the miller experiment, Einstein.

Yes, that was me.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The better question is: What benefit is in a belief in God?

The benefit is believing in Jesus as our Savior means you're not an atheist. That means you'll receive not only short-term happiness, but long-term joy. Otherwise, you end up as an unhappy negative person like our OP.

Belief can also mean that you are an easy mark for fake holy men with all too earthly agendas. It's apparently like walking a minefield to have faith and be appropirately skeptical of con-men with God in their mouths and the devil in their hearts.

So you think misguided non-believers are supposed to go out and save those who may be duped by the prophets for profit? Who, exactly, appointed the non-believers to be the social do gooders?

Who needs to appoint them? Who appointed you the decider of who appoints whom?

This decision is based on morality and ethics, not magical nonsense. Maybe thats why you dont get it?

Dude, you must be dumber than a box of rocks. I didn't go out looking for atheists to push myself on. An atheist came here wanting to pick a fight with Christians. Here is a link that may help you in the future:

Proven Methods for Adult Literacy Reading Programs – Learning Disabilities Association of America

ldaamerica.org

I'm not deciding anything for anyone. How in name of common sense you got that is beyond comprehension unless you pulled it out of your butt, trying to sound holier than thou. Morality comes from God. Nothing "magical" about the Divine.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The short answer: No. We're born, we live, we die. That's it. There is no intelligence controlling the universe.

The truthful answer is yes. God's existence is proven more by the fanaticism of unbelievers than all the scientific evidence ever collected. Thomas Jefferson, who the non-believers falsely claim as one of their own once remarked: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

Apparently the existence of God threatens you and your personal agenda. Otherwise, it wouldn't make a difference and you would never have started this thread. There are other things to fret over in this life. Unbelievers want to force their "non-belief" onto others to the point that they will use force, demagogue the issue by using the worst interpretations (i.e. Eve never ate an apple nor had a conversation with a snake); start petty arguments on discussion boards wherein they lose any pretend debate, but try to claim they "won" by having board trolls and their sockpuppets post hundreds of idiotic posts that are easily refuted, but unbelievers hold to that maxim that it is easier to believe a lie that is told a thousand times. They're still lying - lying to themselves and lying to those they hope to convert. They would do well to have some serious introspection and ask themselves what their end game is in starting the argument.

In many instances, these people think God let them down personally due to bad interpretations of the Bible, putting their faith in sinners, and / or relying on organized religion for the answers. I see these kinds of threads as pleas for help by desperate people that want someone to prove to them the obvious.

An odd notion to suggest that your gods' existence is proven because non-believers don't believe,

Therefore, Krishna is proven because you don't believe in Krishna.

Odin is thus proven.... well you made the argument. Enjoy.

If there were a substantial number of people who obsessed day and night continually worried about those things, you might have a point. But, they don't. Atheists don't have umpteen threads on various discussion boards challenging Krishna, Buddha, Odin or any other psuedo - gods. Their sole focus is on Christianity. If you fear only one God that much and it causes you to get your panties in a bunch, then you have to apply Jefferson's words to your obsession: "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

It must do atheists some kind of injury for Christians to say there is a God. It's the only God they start daily threads about. The other gods you mention never get their own insult laced threads on a daily basis. Then again, we both know why.

 

[Newtonian]

Create a living thing from a mineral------ any mineral. I'll let you choose.

A stupid request. Name one living thing made of minerals. Name one scientist that says early life was made of minerals. You cant, and your demand is absurd and irrelevant.

Every time you open your mouth, you announce to the world that you know less than nothing about evolution. Why do you even comment on it?

Of course, it depends on which minerals. Did you know that Oxygen is the most abundant element in earth's crust? And much of this is in oxidized minerals. Yet it is not just Miller type experiments that posit a lack of Oxygen in the atmosphere. So how did earth's minerals and sedimentary deposits get so much Oxygen?

Show me any chemical evolutionist that points to earth's geological deposits as evidence of abiogenesis! What evidence of a primordial soup is there in earth's upper crust? Show me!

Better yet - document it!

Here is some evidence:

oxygen group element | chemical element group

oxygen group element, also called chalcogen, any of the six chemical elements making up Group 16 (VIa) of the periodic classification—namely, oxygen (O), sulfur (S), selenium (Se), tellurium (Te), polonium (Po), and livermorium (Lv). A relationship between the first three members of the group...

www.britannica.com

"In the regions ordinarily accessible to man, however—i.e., within a few kilometres of the surface of the Earth—oxygen is the most abundant element: in mass, it makes up about 20 percent of the air, about 46 percent of the solid crust of the Earth, and about 89 percent of the water."

Guess what the most abundant minerals and sediments are in earth's crust?

The Oxygen in H2O is a primarly reason it destroys chemical pathways towards amino acid and nucleic acid synthesis. See my above post for some of these chemical reactions usually ignored by Chemical evolutionists.