• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

Status
Not open for further replies.

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
Ok I want to first help you in your debate form >>> do not give contradictory explanations in the same post...
If you want to help, point to the contradiction.

But that is micro ... not macro ... the difference is huge ... your are going from modifying a plane to transforming a plane into a battleship. Two different things.
Yes, the difference can be huge - that's why those kinds of changes take hundreds of millions, or billions, of years of accumulation of small changes.

You can walk a little over half a mile in ten minutes, taking 1,000 steps at 3.5 miles/hour; let's say that's round the block. But if you take 100 million steps at that speed, you'd go 58,000 miles, more than twice around the world - although it would take you a couple of years (if I've got the maths right).

Walking: An accumulation of small steps over a long period can take you a very long way.
Evolution: An accumulation of small changes over an extremely long period can result in some very large changes.

It's not that hard to understand.
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,629
7,158
✟339,931.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Atheism would need to make some claim before it could be "debunked"

"there is no God" is a claim

Yes it is - but I'm an atheist and that's not a claim I'm making.

I cant' speak for the majority of atheists, but in my experience, it's not a claim that many atheists make. Some certainly do (my father in law for example), but in my experience, they are a slender minority. I, and most other atheists I know, are agnostic atheists.

atheism-theism-agnosticism-gnosticism-pablo-stanley.jpg


Theism contains the inherent claim 'some god exists'. However, atheism is not the negation of theism, but the LACK of it.

I don't make the claim "there is no god(s)". What I take is a position that theists haven't provided enough evidence to convince me of their claim "some god exists". I can't say positively whether gods exist or don't exist, but I haven't been convinced that either claim has met its burden of proof.

In other words, I'm not buying what you're selling, but I'm not trying to sell you anything of my own either.

I'm simply saying - I don't accept your claim. I'm maintaining a position of skepticism and asking you to meet your burden of proof.

Should have stuck to science you were doing much stronger ... I looked at you as a much stronger threat.
Now you went to philosophy and that is not even my strength or connection and yet now you ...

You should have stayed with science.

I'm not a threat - at least, I'm not actively trying to be. I'm simply calling out incongruities in your claims.

And I'm not really putting up philosophical arguments. This is really just basic epistemology and debating 101. You know, providing evidence, justifying claims, making supporting inductive arguments. Simple stuff.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
But you can't design a single cell lol.
Do you even understand what is involved with a single cell?
If you did you would understand my position and why it is based on math and science.
That is why I bated you lol.
You weren't even the one I was bating lol.
Your position is not based on math and science.

Just consider:
A single cell exists.
Process X doesn't cause single cells to exist.
Thus there is a different process that causes a single cell to exist.


That is reasonable.
But your position is:
A single cell exists.
Process X doesn't cause single cells to exist.
Thus process Y causes single cells to exist.


And that is faulty logic.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Sadly, it isn't. And it isn't about me "winning"... it is about you failing at science.

Let's take it slowly, and on your terms.

There either is an intelligent agent responsible for even X, or there isn't.
So now in order to "win", you need to prove that there is no non-intelligent cause for event X. Not that every known non-intelligent cause doesn't apply, but NO non-intelligent cause at all.

That is the first hurdle.

Now you have to show that your intelligent outside agent is a potential solution for the question. You cannot simply assert that it is... you have to provide evidence.

This is the second hurdle.

Only if you can do both, only then have you "won".

If you cannot do that, you have to get back to my level, to the level of science when confronted with unsolvable questions. To confess: "I don't know, based on the available evidence".

And then, doing science, which deals with provisional truths, you would have to admit that a solution based on patchy evidence is still better than a solution based on no evidence.

Was really liking you because you were different. Thought we had a bro-mance like science then you had to ruin it lol.

Ok so we're back to condescending .. its cool .. used to it. Been here done that.
Ok so lets go slowly.

The evidence is very simple in fact you have the opposite. You have to prove that no intelligence is needed.

The atheist camp has had ample time and effort ... ummm lets just say 160 years. With failed idea after failed idea after failed idea.

Then there is the failed data that does not conform to the theory by the slightest and then there are the conflicting data trees that are now leading atheist evolutionary scientists to conclude we may not even have a tree of life or ... Ok "common descent" but as far as the so called tree at this point in their words "ripped to shreds" hahaha.

So I believe that?

But that is not actually why I don't believe it now. That is only what led me to not believe it.

It is the structural impossability of what you propose. It is now as I can see it clearly impossible.

You cannot get to a complex design this level with out a coder.

By the way I should know a little about that. Just a little. (actually a lot lol).
Your going to give me a 3 language code with at this point I'm assuming 20,000 genes x 1 to 10 in the 78 power ... that's for what we know but then there is compressed data and all of that is sequenced to work in harmony? Wait what do you know what that would mean from a programing perspective and do you know the current work going on with epigenetic info.

Yeah that was a long sentence.
Forget it just to do that once is impossible without a coder.
But then to do at multiple times?
And then to improve on it to get it ready for the next quantum leap in evolution to go beyond current body design?
It gets beyond dragons and ferry tales.
I don't care what the Christians say they sound legit compared to what your saying. They sound like einstien they ... sound ..... SOUND.

But I am not ready for that I do know this ... what you are looking at ... it cane done my friend.

Don't talk to me about the science like I am a child. I was in a gifted school when I was a child.
Don't talk to me about designs or coding ... how many tens of thousands of code have you done?
Maybe you have. But don't talk to me like I can not see what is right in front of me.

Its too complicated.
The deeper you look ... and I am looking real deep talking to real scientists face to face.

Its too complicated.
I'm sorry.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Your position is not based on math and science.

Just consider:
A single cell exists.
Process X doesn't cause single cells to exist.
Thus there is a different process that causes a single cell to exist.


That is reasonable.
But your position is:
A single cell exists.
Process X doesn't cause single cells to exist.
Thus process Y causes single cells to exist.


And that is faulty logic.
Ok now I will talk to you slowly
Real slowly

Do you have any idea how complicated a cell is?

I mean really?
 
Upvote 0

Skreeper

Well-Known Member
Jan 30, 2017
2,471
2,683
32
Germany
✟91,021.00
Country
Germany
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Don't talk to me about the science like I am a child. I was in a gifted school when I was a child.
Don't talk to me about designs or coding ... how many tens of thousands of code have you done?
Maybe you have. But don't talk to me like I can not see what is right in front of me.

Its too complicated.
The deeper you look ... and I am looking real deep talking to real scientists face to face.

Its too complicated.
I'm sorry.

Yea I'm calling it. You're either a troll or someone with a huge case of Dunning-Kruger.

Don't expect me to take you seriously from now on.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Bugeyedcreepy
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Your position is not based on math and science.

Just consider:
A single cell exists.
Process X doesn't cause single cells to exist.
Thus there is a different process that causes a single cell to exist.


That is reasonable.
But your position is:
A single cell exists.
Process X doesn't cause single cells to exist.
Thus process Y causes single cells to exist.


And that is faulty logic.

Honestly Had amazing respect ...till this.
You don't understand molecular biology ...
You don't ... do you know what a GRN is?
Epigenics?

Man hate to do this because honestly I thought you were above me hahaha.
ahhh man ... this sucks :(
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,629
7,158
✟339,931.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So for building amino acids you do have something. I at this point don't even want get in to the gasses and all of that I want to look beyond that to what happens next.

So I am going to give you amino acids.

So science was able 60 years ago to prove that we can make molecules out of molecules with the right conditions. I accept it ... its science fine.

Now what?

By the way didn't we know that we could make molecules out molecules? With random processes?

Going from Amino to RNA? mmmm that is where it gets fun.

Better read the final study in that list. Here's a highlight:

Here, we report an experimental work, combined with state-of-the-art computational methods, in which both electric discharge and laser-driven plasma impact simulations were carried out in a reducing atmosphere containing NH3 + CO. We show that RNA nucleobases are synthesized in these experiments, strongly supporting the possibility of the emergence of biologically relevant molecules in a reducing atmosphere.
Cribbing from Phys.org's article on the study and experiment:

The results of the experiment demonstrated that all RNA nucleobases were synthesized, strongly supporting the emergence of biologically relevant chemicals in a reducing atmosphere.

In their paper, the authors write, "As the most important finding, discharge treatment of NH3 + CO + H2O led to the formation of a significant amount of formamide and hydrogen cyanide (HCN)." This result is key, as formamide has been experimentally shown to create guanine, an RNA nucleobase, at high temperatures under ultraviolet light.

"Additionally," the authors write, "we detected all of the RNA canonical nucleobases—uracil, cytosine, adenine and guanine—together with urea and the simplest amino acid, glycine… these findings support the idea that a NH3 + CO + H2O atmosphere can substitute for pure formamide and act as a starting environment not only for the formation of amino acids, but also of RNA nucleobases."

The researchers also demonstrated that any nucleic acid base can be decomposed to a reducing gaseous atmosphere by electric discharges in the presence of water, and these gases can react in turn to produce all the RNA nucleobases. They also note that their results do not preclude other scenarios, but demonstrate that multiple pathways to the production of RNA nucleobases are possible.​

Theoretical still, but strong supporting evidence for an abiotic origin of life.

The funny thing is, I was actually looking for a DIFFERENT study on M-U experiments and RNA production and found the more recent research by accident. I've since found the paper I was looking for (Nucleobases and amino acids formation through impacts of meteorites on the early ocean), which argues this:

Here, we report on the simultaneous formation of nucleobases (cytosine and uracil) found in DNA and/or RNA, various proteinogenic amino acids (glycine, alanine, serine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, valine, leucine, isoleucine, and proline), non-proteinogenic amino acids, and aliphatic amines in experiments simulating reactions induced by extraterrestrial objects impacting on the early oceans...

...the present results expand the possibility that impact-induced reactions generated various building blocks for life on prebiotic Earth in large quantities through the use of terrestrial carbon reservoirs
That's the problem with the 'god of the gaps' type arguments (we don't know how X occurred, therefor God). God keeps getting pushed backwards into smaller and smaller pockets of ignorance.
 
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Yea I'm calling it. You're either a troll or someone with a huge case of Dunning-Kruger.

Don't expect me to take you seriously from now on.
That's cool you do know I never really took you serious from the beginning ... you never brought it.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
In the dual slit in quantum physics we have a conscience outside intelligent agent that has an effect on matter and energy.
Only in as much as it takes a conscious agent to set up the experiment and observe the results. But you can set up a machine to do the experiment and film the results, so you can watch it later without being involved in the experiment itself. The results are the same. The 'conscious collapse of the wavefunction' version of the Copenhagen interpretation was dropped by all but a few quantum mystics and woo merchants after only a few years.

So no cats or falling trees ...
hey I'm kind of with you on that but it gets real deep after that. If you follow me on that but not sure you would like that.
I have no idea what you're talking about.

... if there is something beyond quantum theory that
give a difference to what we see in the macro as opposed to the quantum then it makes more sense I think for the atheist. Honestly I always had a problem with the quantum equating directly to macro anyways.
It's just a matter of scale. The quantum stuff 'averages out' to classical at macro scales. It's all still quantum mechanics; as far as we know, there's nothing 'beyond' quantum field theory, and it's been shown that there are no 'hidden variables' lurking below quantum effects.

For the entangled objects to transfer energy there must be a mechanism that can transfer across time and space to the other side of the universe. So to flip the polarity of one particle to the entangled we will need energy on a massive scale.
Energy that is not accounted for. And then there is the info problem and time.
You've misunderstood entanglement. No energy is transferred, and no flipping occurs. Neither particle has a particular state until measured. On measurement, they will found to be correlated with respect to the measured state. That's it.

I'm sure we and others are well beyond what "we know of".
That makes no sense to me. Sounds like a 'deepity'.

We are probably well on to quantum computing.
We are well into quantum computing - Shor's Algorithm was first run 4 years ago...


I'm thinking that consciousness can effect time and that it can be proven at some point if not already.
Your conscious experience of the rate of time passing may make it feel like it's running faster or slower, but it always runs at the same rate - barring relativistic effects that are not significant in everyday life.

The idea that consciousness can direct affect time is the stuff of comic books and superhero movies; it makes no sense in the real world.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FormerAtheist

Active Member
Apr 9, 2018
374
108
35
asheville
✟27,476.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Better read the final study in that list. Here's a highlight:

Here, we report an experimental work, combined with state-of-the-art computational methods, in which both electric discharge and laser-driven plasma impact simulations were carried out in a reducing atmosphere containing NH3 + CO. We show that RNA nucleobases are synthesized in these experiments, strongly supporting the possibility of the emergence of biologically relevant molecules in a reducing atmosphere.
Cribbing from Phys.org's article on the study and experiment:

The results of the experiment demonstrated that all RNA nucleobases were synthesized, strongly supporting the emergence of biologically relevant chemicals in a reducing atmosphere.

In their paper, the authors write, "As the most important finding, discharge treatment of NH3 + CO + H2O led to the formation of a significant amount of formamide and hydrogen cyanide (HCN)." This result is key, as formamide has been experimentally shown to create guanine, an RNA nucleobase, at high temperatures under ultraviolet light.

"Additionally," the authors write, "we detected all of the RNA canonical nucleobases—uracil, cytosine, adenine and guanine—together with urea and the simplest amino acid, glycine… these findings support the idea that a NH3 + CO + H2O atmosphere can substitute for pure formamide and act as a starting environment not only for the formation of amino acids, but also of RNA nucleobases."

The researchers also demonstrated that any nucleic acid base can be decomposed to a reducing gaseous atmosphere by electric discharges in the presence of water, and these gases can react in turn to produce all the RNA nucleobases. They also note that their results do not preclude other scenarios, but demonstrate that multiple pathways to the production of RNA nucleobases are possible.​

Theoretical still, but strong supporting evidence for an abiotic origin of life.

The funny thing is, I was actually looking for a DIFFERENT study on M-U experiments and RNA production and found the more recent research by accident. I've since found the paper I was looking for (Nucleobases and amino acids formation through impacts of meteorites on the early ocean), which argues this:

Here, we report on the simultaneous formation of nucleobases (cytosine and uracil) found in DNA and/or RNA, various proteinogenic amino acids (glycine, alanine, serine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, valine, leucine, isoleucine, and proline), non-proteinogenic amino acids, and aliphatic amines in experiments simulating reactions induced by extraterrestrial objects impacting on the early oceans...

...the present results expand the possibility that impact-induced reactions generated various building blocks for life on prebiotic Earth in large quantities through the use of terrestrial carbon reservoirs
That's the problem with the 'god of the gaps' type arguments (we don't know how X occurred, therefor God). God keeps getting pushed backwards into smaller and smaller pockets of ignorance.

Y]
Better read the final study in that list. Here's a highlight:

Here, we report an experimental work, combined with state-of-the-art computational methods, in which both electric discharge and laser-driven plasma impact simulations were carried out in a reducing atmosphere containing NH3 + CO. We show that RNA nucleobases are synthesized in these experiments, strongly supporting the possibility of the emergence of biologically relevant molecules in a reducing atmosphere.
Cribbing from Phys.org's article on the study and experiment:

The results of the experiment demonstrated that all RNA nucleobases were synthesized, strongly supporting the emergence of biologically relevant chemicals in a reducing atmosphere.

In their paper, the authors write, "As the most important finding, discharge treatment of NH3 + CO + H2O led to the formation of a significant amount of formamide and hydrogen cyanide (HCN)." This result is key, as formamide has been experimentally shown to create guanine, an RNA nucleobase, at high temperatures under ultraviolet light.

"Additionally," the authors write, "we detected all of the RNA canonical nucleobases—uracil, cytosine, adenine and guanine—together with urea and the simplest amino acid, glycine… these findings support the idea that a NH3 + CO + H2O atmosphere can substitute for pure formamide and act as a starting environment not only for the formation of amino acids, but also of RNA nucleobases."

The researchers also demonstrated that any nucleic acid base can be decomposed to a reducing gaseous atmosphere by electric discharges in the presence of water, and these gases can react in turn to produce all the RNA nucleobases. They also note that their results do not preclude other scenarios, but demonstrate that multiple pathways to the production of RNA nucleobases are possible.​

Theoretical still, but strong supporting evidence for an abiotic origin of life.

The funny thing is, I was actually looking for a DIFFERENT study on M-U experiments and RNA production and found the more recent research by accident. I've since found the paper I was looking for (Nucleobases and amino acids formation through impacts of meteorites on the early ocean), which argues this:

Here, we report on the simultaneous formation of nuclides (cytosine and uracil) found in DNA and/or RNA, various protein genic amino acids (glycine, alanine, serine, aspartic acid, glutamic acid, valine, leucine, isoleucine, and proline), non-proteinogenic amino acids, and aliphatic amines in experiments simulating reactions induced by extraterrestrial objects impacting on the early oceans...

...the present results expand the possibility that impact-induced reactions generated various building blocks for life on prebiotic Earth in large quantities through the use of terrestrial carbon reservoirs
That's the problem with the 'god of the gaps' type arguments (we don't know how X occurred, therefor God). God keeps getting pushed backwards into smaller and smaller pockets of ignorance.

Did you look for the problems in forming the RNA molecule while you were at it like uhhh the sugar. You do know that while your forming the nucleotide basis the formation of the Ribose sugar molecule will become a problem? Then there is the bonding requirements of the amino acids and the math and trans-cross contamination. And on and on. But

I want to see it.

All we have seen is failure because the math doesn't work that way.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I can not do theology or bible debates as I am not a Christian buy I can do science because the science is easy. It leads ti God.


Spelling, it seems, is also hard.

Not trying to nitpick or be mean, but I am betting, having not read this thread yet, that your grasp of science is on par with your grasp of spelling.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Perhaps you should read some of the chapters in this book, plenty on biology in it.

In Six Days

The whole book is available online. Many of the non-biology topics also touch biology in good ways. I recommend Chapter 24 for one.
There are several very good ones

Just curious - why did you find it so convincing? Do you have a background in biology?

Never mind - I just read your next post:

Well the main argument in many of the chapters is that they present evidence of the complexity of the subject matter (mostly at the cellular level but not always) of the chapter and then go onto argue that such complexity could not have arisen by chance or, in many case, over the extended period and via the multiple steps that evolution would need.
The point being that for many of the systems discussed in the book, either the entire system is there from the start or nothing works, ie 50% of the system doesn't work, 70% doesn't either, nor does 90%, you need the system, 100%, fully assembled for it to do its job.
In other words, until the system was fully formed, the creature lugging it around would just be carrying around useless structures that provide no benefit but take effort to build.

No background in biology.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes, of course, but the assumption is mistaken because science does not know if miracles exist or not.
By definition a miracle is a rare event, hence may never be captured by science which needs repeatable events or consistent evidence to form hypothesis or laws etc.

Odd that since the invention of the printing press, the number of 'real' miracles has become pretty much 0.

No more raising the dead - nope, now miracles are a cloud that looks like Jesus, or you found your car keys at the last minute.

Never re-grown limbs, things like that. Lots of claims of such things, but there is always an excuse - 'well, it totally happened, right before my eyes! but the family didn't want the media attention, so...' that sort of thing. Which really means it didn't happen.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That is correct. If you can't repeat an event, then it cannot be scientifically verified.
Not sure I agree with that. We cannot repeat the eruption of Mt.Vesuvius that buried Pompeii, but we can, via (repeatable) examination of the evidence found there, confirm that Vesuvius did in fact cause the disaster at Pompeii. We cannot 'repeat' the speciation event that produced bonobos, but we can 'repeat' the analyses of DNA sequences that demonstrate a speciation event. And so on.

By the same token, I don't think that it would be necessary to repeat a miracle, but repeatable "observations" regarding the miracle in question could be sufficient.

By repeatable observations of a miracle, I do NOT mean several people claiming to have seen it. I am talking about repeatable 'empirical' accounts regarding the phenomenon - in the case of, say, a miraculously regenerated limb, there would need to be multiple verified, documented accounts by medical professionals (in the form of imaging verifying that the limb had been lost in the first place; similar documentation that the limb had reappeared; verification that this was not a trick such as via identical twins or whatever, etc.).
 
Upvote 0

Gene2memE

Newbie
Oct 22, 2013
4,629
7,158
✟339,931.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Y]


Did you look for the problems in forming the RNA molecule while you were at it like uhhh the sugar. You do know that while your forming the nucleotide basis the formation of the Ribose sugar molecule will become a problem? Then there is the bonding requirements of the amino acids and the math and trans-cross contamination. And on and on. But

I want to see it.

All we have seen is failure because the math doesn't work that way.

Better tell these scientists that the math doesn't support their experiments:

A possible prebiotic route for the formation of ribose: a natural formose type reaction | Institut d'Astrophysique Spatiale

Prebiotic molecules such as numerous amino acids have been detected in the past few years in the organic residues left after the sublimation of the ices, and they have been recovered at room temperature under vacuum.

Very recently, two important molecules were detected in these residues: glycolaldehyde (with 2 carbon atoms), a precursor of the sugars, and, more significantly, glyceraldehyde (with 3 carbon atoms), the first sugar molecule belonging to the oses family. These results have allowed to seriously address the prebiotic significance of the simulations performed at IAS. Indeed, in the same simulation, the presence of amino acids, precursors of proteins (actors of metabolism) and the presence of two sugars implied in the formation of the aldopentose ribose (precursor of the genetic material) raises questions about the impact of these materials on the prebiotic chemistry on the surface of a telluric planet such as the Earth in its primitive epoch.

Abiotic synthesis of purine and pyrimidine ribonucleosides in aqueous microdroplets:

We show a general synthetic path for ribonucleosides, both purine and pyrimidine bases, using an abiotic salvage pathway in a microdroplet environment with divalent magnesium ion (Mg2+) as a catalyst. Purine and pyrimidine ribonucleosides are formed simultaneously under the same conditions, which suggests a possible scenario for the spontaneous production of random ribonucleosides necessary to generate various types of primitive RNA

Abiotic production of sugar phosphates and uridine ribonucleoside in aqueous microdroplets:

Here, we show that sugar phosphates and a ribonucleoside form spontaneously in microdroplets, without enzymes or an external energy source. Sugar phosphorylation in microdroplets has a lower entropic cost than in bulk solution. Therefore, thermodynamic obstacles of prebiotic condensation reactions can be circumvented in microdroplets.
As much, uh, fun as this is, it's time for bed here.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There are very serious differences between micro and macro. On the micro level the life form stays in its Phylum and does not change the mechanics in a serious way. For example we may need a new respiratory system or ability to drink sea water completely rework the eye design etc. There is no evidence of this because it can't be done. We can't even come up with a hypothetical design.

This is pure gibberish.
However, I do know enough to see flaws in your other points.

New information:
Given that genes can mutate and duplicate in the genome of a life form I see no barrier to completely new variations and traits entering a population. If this doesn't qualify as information, could you please describe what information actually is in your usage and how you objectively measure it.


New genetic information is almost often a bad thing. We did thousands of experiments on Fruit flies for example and not a single one survived long enough to reproduce which is obviously important from an evolutionary perspective.

This is awesome - you have contradicted the great minds of the Intelligent Design Creationism, who have written books purporting to show that mutations are NOT 'new information.'


You have thus rendered a standard ID argument moot! Bravo!

Because it is necessary for the design of which it is a part. We used to think that 98% of DNA was "Junk" or garbage. We then realized it was 10% useful and 90% junk. Then 50/50. Now we are at over 75% useful and many scientists think it will go to 100%.



Wait a sec - I thought you said you knew about science?


There is a rather funny trend among creationists on here (and elsewhere) - they tend to start with proclamations of their grand knowledge of science, only to show such claims to be vapor when they actually try to make scientific arguments.

And your argument here on 'junkDNA' fails from the outset - NOBODY thought 98% of the genome was "garbage" - the original paper by Ohno on the subject only referred to a specific type of DNA. Beyond that, you seem to have fallen for the initial ENCODE hype (probably by reading creationist websites), which has since been all but retracted by ENCODE.

Not really worth going beyond this, it is just more of the same. Another creationist empty suit - I mean, were you ever even really an atheist? None of the creationists I have known personally - who all, amazingly, have similar 'witnessing' tales - were ever actually atheists, they let it slip over time that they were never actually atheists...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,713
3,762
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟260,281.00
Faith
Atheist
Its too complicated.
I'm sorry.
And thus you are looking for simple answers. Because you cannot deal with "complicated".

For all your asserted intelligence, you keep missing the main, the sole point of all this our exchange here.

You keep talking about quantum levels and RNA and gene regulatory networks and probabilities. I am not. I am not trying to defend any of these systems, any of these theories, any of these hypotheses.

All I am doing is to point out that your alternative is worse, in scientific terms.

Complicated? It's easy, when you reduce it to the level of your alternative idea.

"Nature did it".

Is that easy enough for you?


No, don't bother to respond. For a while now I have asked you to provide your evidence, or, as you called it, "proof". You evaded, you wiggled, you ignored.

You don't have anything to offer.
I've tried, and now I have enough.
 
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
3,999
56
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
. We need coordinated steps coming together at the same time or in a specific sequence.

Providing that the structure in question was a goal of evolution.

But evolution has no goals - as creationists are gleeful to admit.

So you just built a strawman.
In science lingo we need multiple evolutionary lines converging.

I know lots of science lingo, and I've never heard anything like that the way you are using it.
This takes the math from impossible to impossible squared.

Lets see your math.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.