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.
This is a very common misconception for many. There are two types of science. There is the operational sciences which can be subjected to the processes you refer to. Then there are the historical which is what we are looking at. In the historical we are looking for causes of past events. That requires a different method.
Has anyone desputed anything I have said? Is anyone fighting me on the math?
Yes, spatially constrained chemistry opens new vistas of possibility - the surface and interstitial chemistry of clays is also a (relatively) novel and interesting area of organic chemistry.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.
A word to the wise - we see this negative proof fallacy quite a lot on these forums. It's popularly known as 'Russell's Teapot'.To me if you can prove that no intelligent outside agent is necessary then you have won.
When we discuss science there is an agreed approach. This approach is rigorous in peer reviewed journals, but even informal conversations benefit from the application of some simple rules. You seem unaware of them. Here are some:That was a waffle because right after I typed it I remembered some work I had done on the number of scientists that are beginning to have serious doubts and leaving Atheism. I was distracted and did not erase or have time.
There is no need to apologise. Your ignorance on this subject has been evident from your early posts, as is your consequent consistent logical error of Argument from Ignorance. There are two key points to be made here:Ok point well taken but just remember that the experiment was done a long time ago. I only know of two experiments of serious consequence since then trying to establish the viability of Abiogenesis.
sadly I just got off the phone with my main guy in forming part of my website and he told me we probably wont be ready till this afternoon. I was wrong to say a few hours I will not show you until we are ready. And that is out of my control. I am not happy about this but I must do work myself for the next several hours. I don't like some of these replies on this thread going unanswered but I have listened to him and know what I have to do.
So I have stay off this forum for several hours and do the work.
Even when I give you the link know this ... .......... we will never be done. This is a life long work at this point unless you can prove to me your case which seems spectacularly doubtful given your fruits.
The fruits of Atheism is despair. It shows me why I must fight it.
And then there is the overwhelming problem it will always have science.
But it is the fruits of it that intrigue me and force me to fight and give all that I can in the fight.
This is my fight ... no matter what I will fight it. Unless you can prove me wrong,.
Just for the record: there are thousands, if not millions of possible amino acids. Only "the 20 canonical" AA's are used in building proteins and that's wheree a lot of people get confused, but there are many more.Except there are not 23 amino acids If I am correct .. just going by memory here.
I'm just going to go ahead and make the prediction that we won't see that guy again.
what do you think of the Giraffs neck?
An all-powerfull, all-intelligent entity most certainly would do a better job.Or the appendix, tonsils, tail bone for human and other useless things?
Could you design better?
Ok I mean two for this debate ...there is either an intelligent outside agent or there isn't.
To me if you can prove that no intelligent outside agent is necessary then you have won.
Its a simple as that.
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.
Ok now I will talk to you slowly
Real slowly
Do you have any idea how complicated a cell is?
I mean really?
Because that is what the world needs...Another creationist/ID website riddled with bad arguments.
I have been involved with many a debate especially latley on the science of the creation of life as we know it. I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact
or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.
Science is not on the side of Atheism and that is why I turned away from it. 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.
I have been involved with many a debate especially latley on the science of the creation of life as we know it. I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.
Science is not on the side of Atheism and that is why I turned away from it. 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.
There is no "science of the creation". All creationists try to sound "sciency", but are either frauds or fail miserably. Mark Kennedy Here might be a lonely exception. But all "professional" creationists, like Ken Ham, Jason Lisle are one of both. Ray Comfort, Kent Hovind and Eric Hovind being both.I have been involved with many a debate especially latley on the science of the creation of life as we know it.
All science is tentative. Indeed one single fact can destroy a beautiful theory. But the ToE is as evidenced as a theory can be evidenced, and one will come with very strong arguments before it will be abandoned. It is still possible though.I hear these ideas that the science is settled ... that evolution is a fact
Then you are hearing wrong. In all the years that I follow this debate science minded people, from all religious and philosophical opinions have insisted that science is neutral about the existence of God, a god or many gods. I'm quite confident that in the 15 pages that this thread has grown there will already be many examples of this.or that there is science prooving no God and so on. This is not true.
Hurray! the first part of this quote is right. Science is indeed not on the side of atheism. Science is neutral on the existence of God, a god or many gods. But if that made you turn away from science, then 1) you made a wrong decission (though feel free to do it) and 2) you did it for the wrong reason. But thanks anyway for admitting that you turned away from science. At least you don't claim like the Hovinds to "love science" after which they butcher it.Science is not on the side of Atheism and that is why I turned away from it.
Science leads to god and you turned away from it? Okay, so you are an atheist then?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.
Can you name a few? Because being an atheist, I don't now any of these.Atheism includes a lot of presuppositions that end up at a wild amount of deadends.
Oh really?Science was never on the side of evolution lol.
Honestly its bad on the evolution side ... its really bad.
And I hate that part because I spend so many hundreds of hours on the side of evolution and to have to turn away from it is not something I like.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?