Your conclusion on God's existence

[Glockmatic]

Give us your definition of transitional fossils teck, then we can discuss what and what isn't a transitional fossil

 

[Glockmatic]

I can't believe how much this guy is brainwashed! Calling stanley millers espirement FACT? WTF?

it happened...so its fact

How did you get to be so full of shit? After stanley millers exposure, NOT ONCE DID ANYONE TRY TO RECREATE LIFE. IF THERE ARE 1000's show me just ONE other experiment. why would any want to embarrass themselves the way Miller did?

Millers experiment wasn't about creating life, it was about creating the building blocks FOR life. Rode, 1999; Hanic et al., 2000, Kobayashi et al., 1998, Miyakawa et al., 2000, Commeyras, et al., 2002 are examples of recent experiments

 

[TecK NeeX]

it happened...so its fact

Sure, A movie about a flying man also happened, sure thats fact, Him flying is not, just science fiction. Concentrate!

Millers experiment wasn't about creating life, it was about creating the building blocks FOR life. Rode, 1999; Hanic et al., 2000, Kobayashi et al., 1998, Miyakawa et al., 2000, Commeyras, et al., 2002 are examples of recent experiments

Gee i didnt know that, Thanks for clearing that up,

Failed misrebaly in a single building stage of thousands. in a controlled environment and with the help of todays sophisticated technology. But but it takes millions and millions of years. Oh yeah? well obviously miller should have known that dont you think?

 

[Glockmatic]

Sure, A movie about a flying man also happened, sure thats fact, Him flying is not, just science fiction. Concentrate!

science fiction like angels and winged horses?

Gee i didnt know that, Thanks for clearing that up,

Failed misrebaly in a single building stage of thousands. in a controlled environment and with the help of todays sophisticated technology. But but it takes millions and millions of years. Oh yeah? well obviously miller should have known that dont you think?

Talk about not making sense.

 

[TecK NeeX]

science fiction like angels and winged horses?

Yup exactly my point. They're both science fiction. Im happy you admitted that. And whats so far fetched about winged horses anyway? whats the difference between a winged raptor and a winged horse or should i say Unicorn? rofl

Talk about not making sense.

Ok

 

[Glockmatic]

Yup exactly my point. They're both science fiction. Im happy you admitted that. And whats so far fetched about winged horses anyway? whats the difference between a winged raptor and a winged horse or should i say Unicorn? rofl

Good, so you admit that islam is science fiction

 

[Jokerman]

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS: He used methane, ammonia, and water vapour in the experiment.

REAL CONDITIONS: Primitive earth contained carbon dioxide and nitrogen instead of methane and ammonia.

Incorrect. That is what the atmosphere had become around 3 billion years ago. It was cyanobacteria that began the initial conversion of the Earth’s atmosphere from an anoxic state to an oxic one, 3.3 billion years ago, allowing plenty of time for amino acids to form and propagate and life to evolve to that point. But when life was formed, about 3.8 billion years ago, the atmosphere was in fact full of methane and ammonia. Oxygen was not present. It hadn't been invited and didn't have a ride anyway. The geologists who figured the early atmosphere was 50-50 carbon dioxide and nitrogen used modern volcanic gases as their models for the early atmosphere. That was a mistake. They failed to take into account that the young Earth was made of chondritic material that when heated gives off the the types of gases that Miller and Urey postulated. Bruce Fegley and Laura Schaefer, of Washington University, showed this to be the case with research done in 2005. (I've even corresponded with both of them.) Anyway, the point is moot. Scientists today believe that early Earth’s atmosphere contained hydrogen, helium ammonia and methane. Not only that, but ammonia and methane were common around volcanoes and deep-ocean vents, so the whole atmosphere didn’t have to be like that.

Problem #2

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS: He assumed oxygen to be non-existent in the primitive atmosphere.

REAL CONDITIONS: Findings show that there was a huge amount of free oxygen in the primitive atmosphere.

Incorrect, as I explained above.

Problem #3

MILLER'S ASSUMPTIONS: There was a special mechanism set up to synthesize the amino acids in the experiment. This mechanism, called the "Cold Trap", isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed and preserved them

REAL CONDITIONS: It was impossible for these kinds of mechanisms to have existed in nature. Under natural conditions, amino acids are exposed to all kinds of external destructive factors.

The amino acids were in no way “isolated!” That claim is outrageous. In fact, a cold trap’s purpose is to prevent the introduction of a liquid or vapor into a measuring instrument from a system, not to isolate certain chemicals from others.

Even if amino acids had formed, it is impossible for these simple organic molecules to give rise to extremely complex structures such as proteins by chance and produce a living cells.

Since it happened, it's not impossible. God is what's impossible. And life didn't come about by chance or coincidence. Instead, a whole series of tiny steps, each one small enough to be a scientifically believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These tiny steps will occur any place where the conditions are right and the time is long. Over time, a minority of these steps will turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction.

And before you know it you have men who feel they are women trapped in a man's body.

 

[Story]

This is the last im going to say of this.

Teckneek, enter a evolutionary doctoral program...


1. Stanley Millers experiment has never been refuted, stop saying "thousands of scientists" show me PUBLISHED ARTICLES THAT DISPROVE IT. your measly opinon does not count. Millers experiment is still taught in universities all over the world. That discussion is closed.

2. You still havent answer my question from 3 posts ago

Why are species present now that were not present millions of years ago.

And here is another one, your bible puts the world at 6,000 yrs old at the latest. That has already been disproven millions of times.

3. You have never used a Cold trap, I have. stop using other peoples experiences as your own.

4. Transitional fossils exist and are still shown and taught to evolutionary students all over this world. Fact. End that discussion. I showed you a rudimentary list, there are thousands more. Again go get educated before you argue with me on something i study little boy. You dont seem to understand how the science community operates. There are always doubters,but when 100000 scientists say these are transitional fossils, you go dig up 1 article that says it isnt. You have to get involved in the community yourself, stop browsing the net. I am involved, I study it, I do it for a living. You are wrong, Im sorry.


I am done with you, you cant even hold a valid discussion because you cant even read what i say, instead twisting it into something all your own. You have a closed mind and you find your information on websites with religious agendas. Just because you manage to find one article out of 20000 that support your views doesnt automatically mean its right. I can find one article that say sthe world is flat, but we all know it isnt.Your simply upset at the fact that the science world has a MOUNTAIN of evidence against creationism, which isnt even an original idea. As all religions today are loosely based off of other societies religions.


Until you answer my question--


Why are there species today, that were not around millions of years ago


Finally I got 1 other question.....

1. If god created all life on earth, as you say and evolution does not occur, why does the bible never mention Onchocerca volvulus, the nematode worm responsible for river blindness. I find it hard to believe that God created a creature that gets into your blood stream then makes its way into your eyes to reproduce, and then you die...or better yet, what about the bacterium Vibrio cholerae, which causes its victims to shit until they die of dehydration. Are you telling me god created those? Hey if the bible is the end all be all how come they arent metioned?



since according to you they couldnt have evolved, where did thos come from.


go ahead, please address my two questions, since you managed to become an expert on evolution by reading one or two articles and copying and pasting them on this site.



until you stop dodging my questions, your not worth discussing this with.

 

[Story]

Not only that your so blind to see that evolution occurs here in humans, and has been.

Take our immune systems, as its the most basic example. When columbus came across the ocean in 1492, thousands of natives died from diseases they had not built any immunity towards, yet columbus' men did not get sick or die...why?


Ill tell you why, over thousdands of years, the people in europe who had been exposed to these diseases graduallly built an immunity towards those diseases due to exposure, and passed those changes along to subsequent generatsion, thats why.

Or did god wave his magic wand, and protect columbuses people?

 

[Story]

I am sick of you saying this or that has been disproven. It hasnt, miller hasnt, the transitional fossils on record havent, your the same person who told me that darwin was proven to be a fraud


You finde ONE article challenging these people, that means nothing. In the science community all this is taught, all this is fact. Grow up, get some good information, then bring your argument here, when you are confronted with something you cant disprove you say, "HE WAS PROVEN WRONG"


sorry buddy, you are wrong. Go to your local science professor, guess what, darwin, miller, and transitional fossils are part of any education.

The problem with people lik you is if a transitional fossil is presented to your kind, it is disregarded as a mutant, or birth defect, of some type. Call a University, ask them.

pz

 

[Jokerman]

Story, you need to go back and read teck's earlier replies to everyone, he pretty much covers your questions. Wrongly ...but he covers them. Oh, and he's Muslim so the Bible is pretty whack to him too. And the Quran, of course, mentions every worm in existence.

 

[Story]

On September 28, 1969, a meteorite fell over Murchison, Australia. While only 100 kilograms were recovered, analysis of the meteorite has shown that it is rich with amino acids. Over 90 amino acids have been identified by researchers to date. Nineteen of these amino acids are found on Earth. Since our early Earth is believed to be similar to many of the asteroids and comets still roaming the galaxy (big bang theory). So its logical to think if amino acids could survive in space, they may have been present when our earth was formed. This meteorite also showed us that many amino acids present on earth most likely came from some planetary fall out....

 

[TecK NeeX]

Incorrect. That is what the atmosphere had become around 3 billion years ago. It was cyanobacteria that began the initial conversion of the Earth’s atmosphere from an anoxic state to an oxic one, 3.3 billion years ago, allowing plenty of time for amino acids to form and propagate and life to evolve to that point. But when life was formed, about 3.8 billion years ago, the atmosphere was in fact full of methane and ammonia. Oxygen was not present. It hadn't been invited and didn't have a ride anyway. The geologists who figured the early atmosphere was 50-50 carbon dioxide and nitrogen used modern volcanic gases as their models for the early atmosphere. That was a mistake. They failed to take into account that the young Earth was made of chondritic material that when heated gives off the the types of gases that Miller and Urey postulated. Bruce Fegley and Laura Schaefer, of Washington University, showed this to be the case with research done in 2005. (I've even corresponded with both of them.) Anyway, the point is moot.Scientists today believe that early Earth’s atmosphere contained hydrogen, helium ammonia and methane. Not only that, but ammonia and methane were common around volcanoes and deep-ocean vents, so the whole atmosphere didn’t have to be like that.

I will look into this.

The amino acid were in no way "isolated'

Yes they were, he isolated the amino acids from the environment as soon as they were formed. Had he not done so the amino acids would have been destroyed by the conditions of their environment. Miller even tried his expirement once again and could not even produce a single amino acid without using this 'cold trap' mechanism.

This cold trap mechanism did not exist in the Early Earth to protect the newly formed molecules, there is no evidence that any such mechanism ever existed.

And life didn't come about by chance or coincidence. Instead, a whole series of tiny steps, each one small enough to be a scientifically believable product of its predecessor, occurred one after the other in sequence. These tiny steps will occur any place where the conditions are right and the time is long. Over time, a minority of these steps will turn out to be slight improvements, leading to increased survival and reproduction.

Thats a great story Jokerman, Scientists have had problems with providing an answer or a single piece of evidence for the first step9Simple amino acid) of many in a period of over a hundred years and now you're sitting there day dreaming about how the rest came about in a single paragraph? Your post is made up of a chain of impossibilities in each and every stage.

to explain even just the second stage of the origin of life, evolutionists would face an even greater problem than that of the formation of a single simple amino acid. The origin of proteins, which are composed of hundreds of different amino acids bonding with each other in a particular order. To say that proteins were formed by chance under natural conditions is even more unrealistic and unreasonable than claiming that amino acids were formed by chance. No scientist or evolutionist has even touched on this subject, and they prefer not to.

 

[Story]

Story, you need to go back and read teck's earlier replies to everyone, he pretty much covers your questions. Wrongly ...but he covers them. Oh, and he's Muslim so the Bible is pretty whack to him too. And the Quran, of course, mentions every worm in existence.

No he doesnt, and no it doesnt. I am waiting for a direct response to all my questions.

He is the same person who told me Darwin is not longer taugth in schools and was disproven


He is an idiot, im done arguing with people beneath me.

 

[TecK NeeX]

No he doesnt, and no it doesnt. I am waiting for a direct response to all my questions.

He is the same person who told me Darwin is not longer taugth in schools and was disproven


He is an idiot, im done arguing with people beneath me.

When did I say darwin is longer taught in schools?

And your done arguing with me? You're not even arguing anything, What you brought was already mentioned by duke and Jokerman. Why should i bother with your ass when you didnt bring anything new? All you brought was Millers staged expirement and a dozen so-called transitional fossils that most if not all evolutionists dont consider them as such and have already been discussed

 

[TecK NeeX]

And did anyone notice the hostility and anger coming from this guy towards me? I wouldnt be surprised if this guy one day knocks on my door with a shot gun ready to blow my head off because i dont believe in Evolution LOL. And I thought Duke was bad.

Apparently it's not just religions that have extremist followers, Evolution does to

 

[Jokerman]

I am done arguing with people above me.

 

[Jokerman]

I will look into this.

Don't worry, creationist websites haven't got a hold of it yet and misunderstood it and twisted it into something it isn't, and then disputed their twist of it. So i guess your only recourse will be to say, "Well, that's just one study. Hasn't been confirmed yet by others."

To say that proteins were formed by chance under natural conditions is even more unrealistic and unreasonable than claiming that amino acids were formed by chance. No scientist or evolutionist has even touched on this subject, and they prefer not to.

There you go with your chance again when i already said it wasn't chance. What's that saying? You can lead a horse created by evolution to water, but you can't make him drink it if it's teeming with early-earth protein molecules? Yeah, that's the one.

 

[TecK NeeX]

Don't worry, creationist websites haven't got a hold of it yet and misunderstood it and twisted it into something it isn't, and then disputed their twist of it. So i guess your only recourse will be to say, "Well, that's just one study. Hasn't been confirmed yet by others."

Actually everything that evolutionists present to support Evolutionary theory turn out to be false hopes by later and more recent research, discoveries and experiments. Done not by creationists but by pro-evolution scientists. Infact many of them turn out to be frauds or hoaxes. And you're right I dont know if this study has or havent yet been confirmed by others but someone will and will deal another blow to the theory just like the rest.

There you go with your chance again when i already said it wasn't chance. What's that saying? You can lead a horse created by evolution to water, but you can't make him drink it if it's teeming with early-earth protein molecules? Yeah, that's the one.

Of course it's all chance and coincidence. It's the only other explanation one can provide without the works of an intelligent deity.

And thats not the actual saying, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink it. You can't make a horse drink any water. Dont know what you're trying to imply with your little addition to it. Id liek to know tho.

"Horse created by evolution". Is Evoltuion your All Mighty creator jokerman?

 

[TecK NeeX]

Why are species present now that were not present millions of years ago.

My answer to that will sound just as rediculous to you as your answer will sound to me. I can't prove to you that God created different species in different time periods no more or less different than you can't prove to me evolution is responsible for all different kinds of species. I didn't witness God creating these species nor did you witness the evolution of all known species. I will witness God before you witness the evolution of one species to another

Counter that.