shmogie
Well-Known Member
Correct !
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Verifiable evidence for creationism?
- Thread starter leibowde84
- Start date
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Don't need to.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Anything that replicates by itself is life, or the beginning of life. You did not read my post clearly nor pursued the links. Replicating RNA molecules can be/have been produced in laboratories using physical conditions that exist (even now)/existed in the environment. We know about the primordial soup that existed in Andromeda galaxy, what to talk about conditions on Earth. I do not think there is anything wrong with Wikipedia, it is perhaps the best source of initial information in Internet.
Hah, and your intelligent design is natural? Don't make me ROFL.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Double standards then...
Sapiens
Polymathematician
The facts remain. Schroeder says, on his website 5 years, he got one sheepskin, not two , he was never part of the faculty at MIT. OK, perhaps you are not a liar, perhaps you are just willfully delusional.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Yeah, yeah, yeah. A DOUBLE doctorate, is a double doctorate. Tell you what say anything, everything, so you can get the last word in, as your deflated ego demands. You are getting tiresome, and I am very embarrassed for you. Say what makes you fell like a man, then let it go.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
I assume then, you believe that programs who replicate themselves are alive ? How about tool and die machines that can make many just like themselves, are they alive ? No LIFE, and the alleged beginning of life are not the same. Go to wikepedia, determine what are the basic characteristics of life,there is a list, a list you should have been exposed to in sixth grade science, then get back to me You know about the primordial soup that existed in the Andromeda galaxy, really ? are you sure ? I think this is slipping away from you. I am making no claims re intelligent design. What I am doing is making the claim that there is no evidence to support abiogenesis, and that believers in it must rest their belief in it solely as a result of faith, just like creationists do. The scientific hucksterism that dupes people into thinking it has been "scientifically proven" is garbage. Atheists believe it because they choose to and have faith in the concept, there is no evidence of it, just speculation. It has to be one or the other, or did you have a third way in mind ?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Does that mean that I have a Quadruple doctorate? Wow, three extra degrees for free! That's not how it works, but clearly you have little or no experience with post graduate education.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Feel better now ? You have made an effort to prove you are a man. Let it go
Sapiens
Polymathematician
You'd like to have me stop pointing out your faceplant, eh?
OK ... admit it fully, apologize, and lie no more. Then it will stop because there will be no reason to continue.
shmogie
Well-Known Member
zzzzzzzzzzzz hup, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz ecchZZZZZZZZ, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz a tribute to your mastery of the English language, your clear and cogent grasp of relativity, your overwhelming academic achievements, your triple masters degree in punctuation, your astounding reading comprehension................................fart
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Oh thank goodness, finally. Perhaps matters at hand can now be discussed reasonably
shmogie
Well-Known Member
No. Faith in a concept, is faith in a concept. Some must learn that what they believe in is based on faith, not fact
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Are there tools and dies which can replicate themselves? Tell me of one or two. There is a border-line which is not clearly defined ("The criteria can at times be ambiguous and may or may not define viruses, viroids or potential artificial life as living." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life).
"Biochemist Robert Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory of Oparin and Haldane in its "mature form" as follows: 1. Early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere. 2. This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers"). 3. These compounds accumulated in a "soup", which may have been concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.). 4. By further transformation, more complex organic polymers – and ultimately life – developed in the soup." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_soup
"It was from density fluctuations (or anisotropic irregularities) in this primordial matter that larger structures began to appear. As a result, masses of baryonic matter started to condense within cold dark matter halos. These primordial structures would eventually become the galaxies we see today.
Theories can be divided into two categories: top-down and bottom-up. In top-down theories (such as the Eggen–Lynden-Bell–Sandage [ELS] model), protogalaxies form in a large-scale simultaneous collapse lasting about one hundred million years. In bottom-up theories (such as the Searle-Zinn [SZ] model), small structures such as globular clusters form first, and then a number of such bodies accrete to form a larger galaxy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#Formation
Last edited:
shmogie
Well-Known Member
OK. First please clarify, what is "potential artificial life " ? Viruses and viroids fall on one side or the other depending upon the criteria, but it's for sure they weren't the first life forms, because as far as I know, they need a complete cell host to reproduce themselves. Professor Shapiro's musings are nice, but how does he know any of the things he proposes are true ? Since the 1950's there have been attempts to replicate the scenario you describe in a lab, different chemicals, different environments, different energies, and all that has resulted is a few amino acids, which aren't living organisms. Shapiro's wishes, and hopes, and I think so's could go onto a chart, and look so impressive, but it would mean nothing. Science demands that a process be observed ( this hasn't), be reproduced (this hasn't) or at least be explained with something more than, may's, coulds, perhapses, and maybe's, this hasn't. I heard it explained like this once, the earth of molten rock cooled. Rain fell on the rock for billions of years, we are the result of water runoff from rock. Do you buy that ? There are more detailed things that I could go into, like how just about any primordial soup is hostile to to DNA strand attachment, when it is tweaked to allow better attachment, the DNA segments are destroyed before the even have time to attach. There is a whole lot more, but I think the point is made, it is all guess work and speculation, and if you believe it, you believe it because of faith, not fact. I haven't spent that much time on galaxy formation, other than how it relates to the big band, artifact background radiation, and ripples in that radiation. So, I will defer to you re what you posted
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Except you are the one being unreasonable.....
Even in your sad attempt at insult.
McBell
Admiral Obvious
so you are fine with using a completely different set of standards when proving god?
How can you be taken seriously outside the choir?
shmogie
Well-Known Member
Exact same standards. It is either one or the other, and neither is imperically provable. So, how can you be taken seriously outside your choir ?
lol yeah, right. I beg to differ, he was the one being unreasonable, even his sad attempts at insult.
james bond
Well-Known Member
Not really. Bacteria is actually very complex. Evolution cannot create one bacteria as they "claim." Claims are not facts. However, bacteria certainly creates other forms of bacteria. That is natural selection and it is part of creation science even though many are brainwashed into thinking it is evolution. Religious scientist Alfred Russel Wallace presented it, too. Just look at the evidence in this thread that states natural selection proves evolution. Even Darwin admitted he could not create life, so thought he was wrong about evolution. Actually, he was right. Maybe that and natural selection are the only things he got right. Plenty of evidence to show that atheist Darwin was usually wrong. Back to the bacteria reproducing very quickly. Rapid change is part of creation science. It does not take millions or billions of years.
Where do you get the notion that creationists think we have not changed since creation. We have changed for the worse and then better and then worse. First was Adam's sin which plagued us all. We went from perfection to imperfection over time. We still admire perfection in nature and human race as evidence of longing for the past. The next major event was Jesus' death which gave us a chance to be saved from the downward spiral. It became worse since Noah's flood, but we still can live a relatively long time and get the most out of our lives while we are here. Moses came later to give us the standards.
It's an interesting theory of yours about humans. Care to expand your thinking? My thinking is some will progress to healthier and longer lives and maximize their longevity, but we will not be as healthy as our original ancestors or live as long.