- Apr 9, 2018
- 374
- 108
- 35
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
Upvote
0
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.
Cool - 100 pages of paraphrased already-refuted YEC propaganda!
Ah atheists. This reminds of a blog/article looking to write about pride. Let me give you the intro: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.
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.QUOTE]
A sugar molecule is also a biologically relevant molecule. Sorry but this isn't even close to what is needed.
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 lim
b 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.).
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.
I make mistakes and am not afraid of them. Not afraid of the truth either. That's why I left atheism. It is not the truth. And science does not back it. You can find a fault or an error, spelling, punctuation and then cry "see we won". But the truth doesn't really work that way.You are not serious, are you?
"Random selection"?
I thought you said you knew all about science?
I make mistakes and am not afraid of them. Not afraid of the truth either. That's why I left atheism. It is not the truth. And science does not back it. You can find a fault or an error, spelling, punctuation and then cry "see we won". But the truth doesn't really work that way.
Well, I have only recently looked at this thread, and just from the first couple of pages, I found a lot wrong.
"Random selection", for example.
Regarding your math, all I see are numbers thrown out with the expectation that all are merely to accept them at face value.
I do not. I have asked for clarification on your math, and we will see if you ever are able to answer my questions.
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:
These guidelines are not pretentious affectations, but means towards improved communication. I do hope you'll pay them some heed, or our dialogue will be reduced to a monologue.
- Aim for clarity, concision and comprehensiveness
- Edit your work
- Do not ramble
- Do not introduce extraneous comments
- Remember you are not in a pub, drug den or mental hospital.
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:
1. I am not aware of any experiment that has sought to establish the viability of abiogenesis by actually creating life. Given our current level of ignorance that would be presumptuous and probably fruitless. The experiments explore prebiotic synthesis, a prerequisite for abiogenesis. I am not certain that you understand that. If you didn't, I trust you do now.
2. There have been numerous abiogeneis experiments made. I am not going to do your literature search for you, but I shall make this contribution to removing your ignorance on this specific issue. It is a review paper, published in 1965, ten years after publication of the Miller-Urey experiment. It details over fifty such experiments. Fifty experiments in ten years and that is more than fifty years ago. It's up to you to search the literature for what's been done in that half century. I suspect it's considerably more than you imagined.
Having too many issues and some personal stuff so had to take of. I'm not rushing for anyone. In fact there is no time line as it will be done when it is done. And not before.
Polite communication was not working. You were not listening. At least you finally got one of my messages. Why don't you now address, in a proper manner, the scientific issues.Well thanks for arrogantly setting me straight. I feel like a child next to the emperor.
A hurricane does not show the type of predefined information that has a purpose that we find in the information of DNA. Saying that a bunch of random phone numbers is complex is not the same as saying that hundreds of thousands of lines of code designed to build multiple factories is complex. Very different. Do you think a factory is random?Complexity is not an argument for design.
A hurricane is complex as well.
I hope so, because the math you posted is useless.The math is absurdly simple. Do I really have to break it down for you? Is that going to help?
I doubt it but here goes.
Off the top of my head.
Average protein will have probably 300 amino acids and there are 20 so that would be (1/20)300 or 2.04 x 10 to the power of 390. But I like Axe's work on that where he goes with 1 in 10 to the 78. So yeah I'm going off his math which is far more accurate since he did the actual lab work.
Actually there is a video that does this better.
Honestly there are too many of you and one of me. Meanwhile I have serious things to do. I my mission is ... well its bigger then debating on one forum. I don't know how much time I can devote to this but I will try. But one thing I will not do is get too distracted that I get torn away that for me is far more important.Polite communication was not working. You were not listening. At least you finally got one of my messages. Why don't you now address, in a proper manner, the scientific issues.
Honestly there are too many of you and one of me. Meanwhile I have serious things to do. I my mission is ... well its bigger then debating on one forum. I don't know how much time I can devote to this but I will try. But one thing I will not do is get too distracted that I get torn away that for me is far more important.Polite communication was not working. You were not listening. At least you finally got one of my messages. Why don't you now address, in a proper manner, the scientific issues.
The fruits of Atheism is despair. It shows me why I must fight it.
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'.
Also, given that these are the Physical & Life sciences forum, what counts is not winning or losing, but getting a better understanding of the subject and - sometimes - learning enough to change or refine our opinions.
Well there are the higher suicide rates and the fact that you don't have babies. No babies = no civilization. Or we have to open the borders to take up your slack? This is what happens when you think you have no meaning or purpose. Watch some Rick and Morty to get an idea of the atheist mindset and how they think of family and the importance of anything except your own selfish needs. A society like that will plow off the cliff.Even if that is true for you, why assume that is true for everyone else?
And what exactly is it you think you are "fighting"?
If there can only be 2 possibilities for an accounting of an event then disproving one automatically proves the other.
Well there are the higher suicide rates and the fact that you don't have babies. No babies = no civilization.
Watch some Rick and Morty to get an idea of the atheist mindset and how they think of family and the importance of anything except your own selfish needs.
Dangerous idea and sadly its been tried. The Soviet Union, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea. Truth is you need Christians more then you think.
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?