An open debate to Atheists on a creator.

[FormerAtheist]

I didn't go into detail because it's not necessary - as I said, if it's possible for a simple replicator to emerge under the conditions described, that's sufficient.

We have clear evidence that evolutionary processes can (albeit wastefully) generate improved solutions under selection pressure. We even use simplified computer versions of evolutionary processes to produce 'designs' more effective than those of human design.

As for life from non-life, that's the point in question - we're unlikely to see it in nature today because life itself has completely changed the environment - that's why we have to replicate early Earth conditions - and the results so far are far more promising than had been expected.

Any evidence of an intelligent designer, god or otherwise, would be interesting.

Exactly - or what if the tooth fairy wants you to believe that God created life? When you make up stories about magical entities, you can invent any old tosh you like to explain why there's no evidence for them, and why all the evidence we do have is consistent with a naturalistic explanation.


Meh; I was rather (optimistically) hoping for a counter-argument.

Try this again because my message was wrapped up in the quote:

Actually no it is not. It is mathematically impossible to create what you want in the 200 million years or so you have before bacteria. Many people think you have the entire time-span of the earth to work with but you don’t. This is why its actually far harder for the atheist to work on the pre life problem. How do you first get to somewhere where you can have selection. Well its going to be hard its just going to be impossible. Its the combination space. Lets say 200 million years x the minutes in the days of those years. Lets do the math easy style … 200ma x 365 x 24 x 60 will get you = 105,120,000,000,000 or 105 trillion or lets round down make it easy 10 to the power of 13. But you have a problem in that the best case I have ever seen was 1 chance in 10 to 78. But that’s for a protein this thing your going to need whatever it is because we have never seen. No proof of it. Well whatever it is will have to be much more complicated.



There is a reason that scientists gave up on life springing into cells because they realized it was way to far out. Then they went to DNA and most have pretty much gave up on that. There are now 20 (main)theories that are mostly bad the best one is RNA and the Pre-RNA the one where “something” sort of “invented” RNA hahahaha. Oh wait you don’t believe me. You think oh I don’t read the literature.

Ok:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/73781/prebiotic_chemistry_and_the_origin_of_the_rna_world/#PkAgGpkYJZXUyLLp.99



Let me just save you some time… just read the first paragraph … I’ll give you the last sentence and save you more time:

Molecular Biologists’ Dream. This in turn leads to a discussion of genetic systems simpler than RNA that might have “invented” RNA. Finally, we review studies of prebiotic membrane formation.



Yeah and they should dream on because of all the problems. But they get paid to dream and write long articles and talk about imaginary pre-pre-cell “things” … “something”. Oh wait they have different names for these “things”.

I have read there names and it makes me laugh. Because we don’t have anything and we never did. But we do have a name.



I was once in a debate when someone brought up one fo the names. I told him that I knew of the Ur-Animal and it had a name … this was interesting to them until I showed them a red dragon I found on DeviantArt. Now I have an artist drawing, a name, a theory and I can write a 5000 word essay on this “thing”.



Where did the information come from?

We havn’t even talked about that yet.

That is the fun part.

Want to make $5,000,000?

If you can show 3 scientists where the information for life came form you will win $5,000,000 … the prize has been going on for years. No takers.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Atheism includes a lot of presuppositions that end up at a wild amount of deadends.

That is sadly the truth.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Science is based on the assumption that miracles don't exist
and never happen.

I disagree... evolutionary science is based on all kinds of miracles and then there is the magic angiogenesis miracle ... where Time turned soup into life.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Ok this quote of mine is taken out of context.

I didn't take it out of context in the slightest. Your full post #327 consisted of what I responded to, and no more than that. Might have been taken a little bit out of the context of the conversation you were having, perhaps, but I didn't remove any content.

You have to go back and find it and bring it back. I tried but I can't find it and don't have the time.

You know those little blue arrows pointing up next to the quoted person's username in a post? If you click them, it brings you back to the post that person is quoting from. If you click the one in my previous post, you'll be instantly taken to yours.

But if your going to quote me just please do it in context.

In the context of abiogenesis, natural selection applies about the same as it does on actual living organisms, just with molecules and collections thereof.

I was referring to what someone else was saying where they were tying abiogenesis to evolution. And I was pointing out that ... well that wouldn't work.

I only see creationists regularly do that. However, your suggestion that there was "nothing to select for" prior to a living cell is incorrect. Protocells with a metabolism so basic and passive that we could debate as to whether or not it counts, which consist of lipid bubbles with some proteins and nucleic acids in them, are highly variable, and the ones best at replicating do dominate abiogenesis experimental environments over ones bad at replicating. Heck, from the get go, there is stuff to select for.

 

[VirOptimus]

Liveleak.com - What happened in Sweden. 60 Minutes Story

Thats crap. Learn to check your sources.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I disagree... evolutionary science is based on all kinds of miracles and then there is the magic angiogenesis miracle ... where Time turned soup into life.

-_- you mean abiogenesis? Because angiogenesis is the development of new blood vessels within a body. And the "soup" thing was and always has been a facetious comparison.

Also, abiogenesis experiments resulted in the development of protocells in 2013. It's not impossible that indisputably living cells will form in one of those experiments within my lifetime (I'm 23).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Actually no it is not. It is mathematically impossible to create what you want in the 200 million years or so you have before bacteria. Many people think you have the entire time-span of the earth to work with but you don’t. This is why its actually far harder for the atheist to work on the pre life problem. How do you first get to somewhere where you can have selection. Well its going to be hard its just going to be impossible. Its the combination space. Lets say 200 million years x the minutes in the days of those years. Lets do the math easy style … 200ma x 365 x 24 x 60 will get you = 105,120,000,000,000 or 105 trillion or lets round down make it easy 10 to the power of 13. But you have a problem in that the best case I have ever seen was 1 chance in 10 to 78. But that’s for a protein this thing your going to need whatever it is because we have never seen. No proof of it. Well whatever it is will have to be much more complicated.



There is a reason that scientists gave up on life springing into cells because they realized it was way to far out. Then they went to DNA and most have pretty much gave up on that. There are now 20 (main)theories that are mostly bad the best one is RNA and the Pre-RNA the one where “something” sort of “invented” RNA hahahaha. Oh wait you don’t believe me. You think oh I don’t read the literature.

Ok:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/73781/prebiotic_chemistry_and_the_origin_of_the_rna_world/#PkAgGpkYJZXUyLLp.99



Let me just save you some time… just read the first paragraph … I’ll give you the last sentence and save you more time:

Molecular Biologists’ Dream. This in turn leads to a discussion of genetic systems simpler than RNA that might have “invented” RNA. Finally, we review studies of prebiotic membrane formation.



Yeah and they should dream on because of all the problems. But they get paid to dream and write long articles and talk about imaginary pre-pre-cell “things” … “something”. Oh wait they have different names for these “things”.

I have read there names and it makes me laugh. Because we don’t have anything and we never did. But we do have a name.



I was once in a debate when someone brought up one fo the names. I told him that I knew of the Ur-Animal and it had a name … this was interesting to them until I showed them a red dragon I found on DeviantArt. Now I have an artist drawing, a name, a theory and I can write a 5000 word essay on this “thing”.



Where did the information come from?

We havn’t even talked about that yet.

That is the fun part.

Want to make $5,000,000?

If you can show 3 scientists where the information for life came form you will win $5,000,000 … the prize has been going on for years. No takers.

Just another argument from incredulity. I have been reading the literature; things have moved on in the last 14 years.

 

[tas8831]

Liveleak.com - What happened in Sweden. 60 Minutes Story

LOL!

A few years ago, an event sponsored by that great pedophile draft dodger Ted Nugent, hosted a guy that claimed Dearborn Michigan has places where the police are afraid to go, and all the signs (to include street signs) are in Arabic. I spent a whole 2 minutes on Google street view, and found NO signs in only Arabic, and could find no references via the internet indicating that police are afraid to go to certain parts of the city.

These were stupid right wing lies.

 

[tas8831]

It is mathematically impossible to create what you want in the 200 million years or so you have before bacteria. ... Its the combination space. Lets say 200 million years x the minutes in the days of those years. Lets do the math easy style … 200ma x 365 x 24 x 60 will get you = 105,120,000,000,000 or 105 trillion or lets round down make it easy 10 to the power of 13. But you have a problem in that the best case I have ever seen was 1 chance in 10 to 78.

It is almost as if you think writing large numbers about the number of minutes in 200 million years had some kind of relevance to ... something.

You must think everyone is as unthinking as your YEC pals.

 

[FormerAtheist]

It is almost as if you think writing large numbers about the number of minutes in 200 million years had some kind of relevance to ... something.

You must think everyone is as unthinking as your YEC pals.

Actually it does lol. That's the time it takes for generation to occur hahaha. ... ahhh this is fun.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Just another argument from incredulity. I have been reading the literature; things have moved on in the last 14 years.

I'm just curious then why are there literally hundreds of scientists that a jumping ship? Why are they bailing. Why are people like me waking up to evolutionary nonsense and switching to ID? Its weird.

 

[tas8831]

Actually it does lol. That's the time it takes for generation to occur hahaha. ... ahhh this is fun.

Not as much fun as exposing you as being unable to produce any relevant math hahahahaha

And that your entire premise is based on wishful thinking hahahaha

 

[tas8831]

I'm just curious then why are there literally hundreds of scientists that a jumping ship? Why are they bailing. Why are people like me waking up to evolutionary nonsense and switching to ID? Its weird.

I'm just curious as to why creationists keep repeating these lies?

I'm betting your verified numbers former evolutionists switching to ID will be as impressive as your anti-evolution math...

 

[FormerAtheist]

I'm just curious as to why creationists keep repeating these lies?

I'm betting your verified numbers former evolutionists switching to ID will be as impressive as your anti-evolution math...

Well I'm not a creationist but thanks for the compliment

 

[FormerAtheist]

I'm just curious as to why creationists keep repeating these lies?

I'm betting your verified numbers former evolutionists switching to ID will be as impressive as your anti-evolution math...

Honestly I consider that a badge of honor ... you made my day ... and I thought you didn't care

 

[tas8831]

This post is sort of like some weird stream of consciousness thing. You OK?

Where did the information come from?

So in addition to fossils and DNA, you are also an "information" expert? Weird how so many internet creationists are experts on all things.

Can't wait till you talk about that.

Want to make $5,000,000?

If you can show 3 scientists where the information for life came form you will win $5,000,000 … the prize has been going on for years. No takers.

Ah - you are referring to Abel's farce?

David Abel, Director, The Gene Emergence Project, Department of ProtoBioCybernetics & ProtoBioSemiotics

The Gene Emergence Project is one of the programs of The Origin-of-Life Science Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)3 science and education foundation with corporate headquarters near NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center just off the Washington, D. C. Beltway in Greenbelt, MD. 113 Hedgewood Drive, 20770-1610 Fax 301-441-8135


Sounds impressive? Where is this amazing scientific foundation housed?

In.. a house:

So impressive...

 

[tas8831]

Honestly I consider that a badge of honor ... you made my day ... and I thought you didn't care

So you've got nothing.

Typical for bombastic creationists. All hat (and paraphrased PRATTs), no cattle.

 

[FormerAtheist]

So you've got nothing.

Typical for bombastic creationists. All hat (and paraphrased PRATTs), no cattle.

As Science Digest reported:

Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.

If there is nothing there then why are they jumping ship?

 

[FormerAtheist]

I didn't take it out of context in the slightest. Your full post #327 consisted of what I responded to, and no more than that. Might have been taken a little bit out of the context of the conversation you were having, perhaps, but I didn't remove any content.


You know those little blue arrows pointing up next to the quoted person's username in a post? If you click them, it brings you back to the post that person is quoting from. If you click the one in my previous post, you'll be instantly taken to yours.


In the context of abiogenesis, natural selection applies about the same as it does on actual living organisms, just with molecules and collections thereof.


I only see creationists regularly do that. However, your suggestion that there was "nothing to select for" prior to a living cell is incorrect. Protocells with a metabolism so basic and passive that we could debate as to whether or not it counts, which consist of lipid bubbles with some proteins and nucleic acids in them, are highly variable, and the ones best at replicating do dominate abiogenesis experimental environments over ones bad at replicating. Heck, from the get go, there is stuff to select for.

Well if we're debating on whether or not it counts then it probably doesn't count.

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry — and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry