Yes, abiogenesis is just a collection of hypotheses... and the hypotheses are unscientific crap! Go back and listen to your video. You're telling a story... most or all of it made up... based on your presupposition that "evolution MUST HAVE happened". Also, notice that no matter how far-out or fantastic your unsubstantiated claims are... as long as deep time is involved, well then, it surely must have happened. Science news flash... time has no creative power.
Why does this vid look like a bunch of Lego's assembling themselves.Part 1 assembled itself into part 2. Then came part 3, which attached itself to part 1 and 2. Then along came part 4, which.......... Do you really believe what you are saying? You SOUND intelligent like you know what you talking about. You don't have any idea. Neither does any person who ever walked the earth. Sorry to disappoint you. We humans just are not intelligent enough to catch up with living nature. Nice try.
@stevebee92653 We do actually have ideas. We go through a lot of effort testing those ideas, and lots of them have evidence. You have ideas, but you make no effort to test them, and have absolutely no evidence they're correct.
We may not know everything about nature, because we don't have access to every piece of evidence. However, science and logic will always get you closer to the right answer than faith.
@Impaler1815 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! Wake up atheist MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
The Conflict of Science and Religion is a contrivance, a contest between who will be King and who will not be King. The Religious strike a fear in the heart of some who will think about the Inquisition. Atheism strikes fear in those who will think about Stalinist Russia. These are the Bells and Whistles of our times. They will not go away by torturing either Religion or Science. As a Catholic , I find I have enough room in my brains for parallel existences and not getting fanatical
Science and Nature are not equivocal. Nature exists without Science, Science cannot exist without Nature. Science cannot teach us what Values we ought to have as Human Beings. But Nature, innately teaches us about Human Values. So the idea of Science being equal to Nature is a misnomer and cause of significant historical damage done by the mysticism of Scientific Theories of Politics and Human Behavior. It turns ourselves into our own experiments, no better than Laboratory Rats.
"Fallacy of ProjectIon" more baloney without real evidence . Dreams become Reality , then fade back into Dreams and become Reality and fade into Dreams and become Reality. This is the Religious Power of the Mind. God has no material or metaphysical limits. You cannot use Psychological Sciences to destroy that which can move from Material, into Ethereal, and move back into Critical Thought which provokes Religious Feelings. You lose, you are an idiot.
Generally, what people hold as Sacred, is that which they find they cannot compromise upon. Natural Law has caused the Family Unit to be a Unity for Nurture. And Nurture is an outside agency to biological transmissions of behavior in the DNA. Such as, if the Mama Bear, abandons her cubs and will not care for them, no amount of Natural Selection to the Mutations of the Species can avert instantly the Extinction of the Creature. Religion is the awareness of Natural Law over Free Will.
People think that Civilization arose first and then they had religions. No ! Archaeological digs in Turkey proves that over ten thousand years ago the first signs of Civilization began surrounding the purpose of building a Temple of Worship. It is Religion that built Civilization , creating a Placebo of Purpose to cause human beings to connect, rather than be hunter gatherers who roamed independently. You folks have no education , that is why you are all ignorant.
@2008Maricel Evolutionists don't accept defeat because we haven't actually been defeated. If you had any arguments besides PRATTs that fall apart when you apply any sort of critical thinking, we'd be able to take you seriously. Did you actually think about anything in that video? Do you believe the Miller experiment was the only ever abiogenesis experiment? Do you believe a substance only produced by life, and a substance toxic to life, is relevant when life doesn't yet exist?
@CarmineFragione Actually testing has shown that DNA can under heavy stresses of gravity, and first off, PROVE what your saying, how do you know god designed all this?
No DNA could ever be made in the natural environment of the Earth, just as much no PC and the Silicon Chips as designed, which is much less a feat than the DNA, that could never be made in the Earthly Realm of such natural forces that would destroy any attempt at design or assembly. That is why such research is going on in outer space, in zero gravity to study how such delicate designs that begin life are made in the outer clouds and waters of the Heavens, where God's fingers work it out
ABIOGENESIS has to have some truth to it, because the Biblical saying is that God mingled the Mystery of God's Wind or Breath, into the Dust of the ground called the Earth and their mingling together built up the life forms. DNA must have been made in the heavens by Solar Winds and rained upon the Earth and the Tides of the Oceans rolled them up into earthly matter that encapsulated them and from there they cannibalized, capitalized and became the Genomes that built up the many living things
@retrogamerist "Why Must" The Word says it is the Glory of God to conceal a thing and the Glory of Kings to find them out. That is why !!! God has left a sign of Creation as a Work, not just an idea, but God worked the design into being and so a design and pathway , the primordial trail of past events left in the Universe, declare the works of God and so that is " WHY MUST" The DNA cannot be created under heavy stresses of gravity, and physical forces that stifle the act.
@retrogamerist Babies upon birth have religious feelings, that they project from their former known condition in the womb, being warm, fed and safe, through a crisis of crying out, and finding eternal conditions of Love ,from the Nurturing Parents. And thus the baby finds God , in the relationship that extend from the physical definition of the womb to the outside agencies that resemble the first conditions, and after crying out and being accepted with love, the child has Religion.
"they project from their former known condition in the womb, being warm, fed and safe, through a crisis of crying out" The inside of the human body is naturally warm, tubes provide food essentially by force from the mother, and the womb provides minimal protection (the majority coming from the parent's carefulness). Simply, even if they did project the loss of their conditions, God is not needed to explain the experience.
And I won't get to how you don't know what a religion is.
@onijester56 I do know what Religion is, I am Catholic. Religio is a Latin term for the proper conduct one uses when dealing with Sacred Objects. Such as fearing to bow before the King, but not accidentally touch the train of his royal robe, lest there be hell to pay for the transgression. So Religion is about the acceptance of Sacred Values, Absolutes which contrast the Holy from the Profane. You can not shake and throw around a baby, it is a Sacred Object of Values. No ?
* To read again (referring to the mythology and scripture)
* To do again (referring to the rituals)
* To bind fast (referring to the social obligations one has within their religion AND the obligation one has to the spiritual)
A modern "religion" has all these parts. The absence of the ritual and myth elements eliminates what a baby has from being a religion even if there were somehow a spiritual aspect.
Now let us forget that and assume that "Religion is about the acceptance of Sacred Values, Absolutes which contrast the Holy from the Profane". There is no 'sacred value' inherent in seeking warmth, food, or safety. They are natural desires, with natural explanations.
Likewise 'love' and 'caring for people' are valuable concepts, but they have biological explanations; they are only 'sacred' to those who want to mark them as 'sacred'.
@onijester56 so you are a Sam Harris fan and do not believe in the existence of the Free Will . If nothing then is Sacred to you, and you have no Free Will. what are doing alive ?
@CarmineFragione 1) Non-sequitur. Even if I were a Sam Harris fan (which, fyi, I haven't heard more than a few random half-minute snippets of him and never picked up a book by him, so I can't very well be a 'fan'), that would have no impact on the validity of my etymological and scholarly analyses OR my analyzing your claims as youu present them now.
2) Non-sequitur and ignorance. Nature provides the epitome of free will: acts only truly have consequence relative to the action.
3) Ignorance/equivocation. Something can be valuable without it being sacred. Cooperation is valuable not just because some divine entity says that it is, but because of the benefits/rewards/etc (both short-term and long-term) that it has to those who cooperate with others. Not only has this been observed, but also has it been observed that OTHER ORGANISMS tend to realize the value of cooperation before humans do.
I don't need the "sacred". I have less-primitive bases for values.
@CarmineFragione Fallacy of Projection. Now actually deal with the topics.
You can begin by explaining how an entity whose philosophy (if it can be said to have any philosophy, as anything resembling a formal/reflective consciousness is underdeveloped for up to several years after birth) lacks scriptural, obligatory, mythological, and ritual aspects and at best bases any spiritual aspect on ignorance can be said to have a religion when a philosophy must have those aspects to be a religion.
@onijester56 There was a 430 years gap between the Israelites of Genesis and the Israelites of Exodus, There is no history of Egypt's account of the Jews, except a few fragments. So an undifferentiated belief system that is simply diffused into general social histories, can re emerge due to pressures, ( the Jews had become enslaved in Egypt) Aspects of Nurture can assemble a religion , diffuse into general sentiments and collect back into a definitive faith for a Nation.
@CarmineFragione Nice history you present. Not like I didn't learn it doing research and figuring out the answers to the questions you are avoiding (and much more). However that DOES NOT deal with the question. So instead, I'll put it so you have no way to misunderstand it.
How can "Babies upon birth have religious feelings" when all 'feelings' they may have are devoid of the attributes that make something a religion?
@onijester56 For the simply challenged people, who cannot get it, Religion is a Morality Play on past Stories of actual people's lives, where information considered sacred to each generation , for survival and the prospects of happiness are transmitted. In the Ancient Times the secrets of Alchemy, including smelting Copper was not sold as "Science" but as part of the Cultural Mysteries, Secrets and hence "Religion" the "Trade Secrets of the Craft" . Religion is Civilization.
@onijester56 A baby comes with sacred values embraced not by the baby, but by the parents. The religious feelings about child care, or Nurture, is an adult subject, but when being taught to children, initiatives such as toys, dolls and other teaching devices are used for moral training in the life style of the culture. You think Religion is only about dying and going to Heaven ? Even that thought is a metaphor for daily risings and settings of the Sun ,the Moon and the Stars .
@CarmineFragione "A baby comes with sacred values embraced not by the baby, but by the parents." Then it is NOT THE BABY WHO HAS THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS.
On the 'sacred', you destroy your definition of "that which they find they cannot compromise upon" by placing it on being taught to them. Experience and new knowledge easily replace and change what one holds as "sacred".
"You think Religion is only about dying and going to Heaven ?" That's it, I'm done. At least read what someone puts.
@onijester56 A baby comes with sacred values embraced not by the baby, but by the parents. The religious feelings about child care, or Nurture, is an adult subject, but when being taught to children, initiatives such as toys, dolls and other teaching devices are used for moral training in the life style of the culture. You think Religion is only about dying and going to Heaven ? Even that thought is a metaphor for daily risings and settings of the Sun ,the Moon and the Stars .
@onijester56 There was a 430 years gap between the Israelites of Genesis and the Israelites of Exodus, There is no history of Egypt's account of the Jews, except a few fragments. So an undifferentiated belief system that is simply diffused into general social histories, can re emerge due to pressures, ( the Jews had become enslaved in Egypt) Aspects of Nurture can assemble a religion , diffuse into general sentiments and collect back into a definitive faith for a Nation.
Religion is just a hidey-hole for the morally fearful, afraid of death.
Putting your faith and life into the hands of an imaginary celestial protector is the ultimate cop-out from taking any responsibility for your own life.
It's the ultimate comfort blanket. All you have to do is find a nice dark corner of your life, pull the blanket around you, shut your eyes, stick your thumb in your mouth and cry to daddy to make all the nasty things go away.
@Impaler1815 Sorry buddy... I few days ago, I could not for the sweat in me post the correction comments. I kept on and just noticed that there were 4 copies. I removed the extras and left only one copy, so I don't look like Im trying to spam. Thanks man. We had a good exchange for those few days. Later.
Not a scenario.... a position. If you're atheist how could something evolve without abiogenesis? Or what abiogenesis progress to without evolution. They do depend on each other if you're an atheist. Else, that'd be an insane atheist.
You seem pretty smart, I can't believe you can't see the connection between these two.
I think you're right, this is over-over-over-oversimplified. Actually, it can also be called wishful thinking. Or spontaneous generation. We can't separate abiogenesis from evo. they're completely interdependent on each other. And they're both false claims. The simplest organism I've seen has over 580k base pairs, do the math on that one!
@compgrad1 How are they interdependent? How would the falsification of abiogenesis falsify evolution? It wouldn't, you only think so because A. Your creationist websites have told you so and B. Because it's easier to disprove your enemies if you attack their weakest point.
Do you have anything to back up the assertion that they're false claims?
Even if a 580k base organism was the simplest (it's not), it would be far simpler than an omniscient omnipotent being. Do the math on that.
@Impaler1815 Evo and Abio depend on each other else you'd be a theistic evolutionist. Actually, my logic tells me that it's impossible. If you multiply 580k * 580k, you'd get a good model on the odds of a perfect assembly of these bases. Also, atheists are always the ones claiming God Doesn't Exist, but can't back up. You're opinion or logic, or whatever sense is telling you that a blind force is responsible for all the intelligence in the world, bc to follow laws there must be intelligence.
@compgrad1 I agree that an atheist needs to believe in abiogenesis, but that doesn't mean evo and abio depend on each other. Evolution does not equal atheism.
Who says 580K is the simplest replicator? We know for a fact it isn't. Abio is unlikely, but at least we know there's a chance it could happen. We know nothing about the chances of God existing.
@Impaler1815 I never made that statement. I simply said you would have to be an theistic evolutionist. I do however beg to differ: abio and evo depend on each other b/c you can't have one w/out the other. If abio only, then evo of species is nonexistent, if evo only, then where did the life comes from? That's why they're dependent on each other and this is why I believe that Creation is the only viable solution.
@compgrad1 By your standards every god ever claimed to be true exists, because they cannot be falsified. We would also have to accept the celestial teapot, ghosts, big foot, literally every unfalsifiable claim.
So you admit that the falsification of abiogenesis would not falsify evolution...Yet you still claim they rely on each other? Why are you clinging to these arguments when you've shown their logical flaw?
@Impaler1815 Has the teapot ever changed lives? Has it healed anyone? Did it prophesy? It doesn't even have a "book". That is just a simple deception invented to distance people from the True God.
I think you're putting words in my sentences.... I think evo/abio have to go hand n hand. One can't exist w/out the other. I am not clinging to either, I think they are both false, and only showed you why I thought so. Please reread my arguments bc I think you missed something.
@compgrad1 If God has healed people, changed peoples lives, or fulfill prophecies that would be positive evidence of his existence. Do you have any actual examples of such events? What you claimed isn't that God has positive evidence, it's that we should be providing negative evidence, and that was the claim I refuted. Don't try to move the goal posts with me.
@compgrad1 You've explained why you believe they're false. I explained why your standards are illogical. I've missed nothing. You yourself admitted there's a situation where evolution could be true, and abiogenesis false (theistic evolution), yet you still say they rely on each other. Evolution requires life. Are you arguing that life doesn't exist, or that life has no beginning?
@Impaler1815 No, I said that IF you were to believe that abiogenesis may be false, but evolution is true, then you would have to admit that you are a theistic evolution.
Here's what I said earlier >>>""Evo and Abio depend on each other else you'd be a theistic evolutionist.""
That being said, I don't accept theistic evolution, evolution or abiogenesis. I am a Young Earth Creation person. Neither do I believe in the Old Earth Creation. Please forgive any miscommunication.
@compgrad1 So you say it again, there is a scenario where abiogenesis could be false and evolution true. So in other words they don't depend on each other. why do you find it difficult to consider a hypothetical?
@Impaler1815 Not a scenario.... a position. If you're atheist how could something evolve without abiogenesis? Or what evolves if there's no abiogenesis. They do depend on each other if you're an atheist. Else, that'd be an insane atheist.
You seem pretty smart, I can't believe you can't see the connection between these two.
Of course I believe in abiogenesis. But you acknowledge it's possible to believe in evolution but not abiogenesis, therefore evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. It's simple logic.
Of course there's a connection between them, they're both part of natural science, they're both something atheists believe in, however they're not dependent on each other. How can you not see there's a difference?
@Impaler1815 I posted a correction of my last statement on your channel comments, it would let me post it here.
I KNOW of the position of theistic evolution, I know what it stands for, BUT I DON'T ACCEPT IT. I think evolution and abiogenesis are both false. If they were to be true like you think they are, how would they not have to be dependent on each other? That's what baffles me. Why do you think evol would not depend on abiogenesis? and vice versa?
@compgrad1 I know what you believe, you're a YEC. What you believe doesn't dictate reality.
It baffles me that you do not see such simple logic. You're so devoted to your position that you can't even entertain hypothetical ideas. It's really simple:
There is a position that people believe that involves evolution, but no abiogenesis. (as you agree)
Therefore if abiogenesis were falsified that position would still be viable.
Therefore evolution does not depend on abiogenesis.
@Impaler1815 You said earlier: " I agree that an atheist needs to believe in abiogenesis,..."
and ... "Of course I believe in abiogenesis" making you an atheist. So you would have to ditch your beliefs. You'd have to become theistic evolutionist in order to accomodate a falsification of abiogenesis.
In that scenario, I agree these two ideas would not be dependent on each other.
However you can't conclude that evo and abiog are not dependent on each.... it's only if one is falsified.
@compgrad1 That's right, if I believed God created life and it evolved from there I would be a theistic evolutionist. It's called a hypothetical scenario, something that's easy to comprehend if you aren't emotionally attached to your current belief.
So the correct statement is "Atheism depends on abiogenesis and evolution being true"
@Impaler1815 RNA forming on a primordial earth is laughable and not science!.. and "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction. Intelligence created life not time and chance! Moronic atheist chemistry never works!
@Impaler1815 You have ZERO testable repeatable Chemistry to back up what you just said!, its all speculation and assumptions, and thats not science!!
@5tonyvvvv Oh my, you've obviously never heard of, well, any abiogenesis experiment ever performed. Sure it's not exactly totally proven, however to say that there's been no success at all is totally dishonest.
However, it is 100% honest to say the alternative you're presenting, that life was thought into existence, does have zero evidence and no know possibility.
@Impaler1815 The chemistry proves Time and chance can Not form life, or even the Building the blocks of life! You can't even get to evolution until you have the first cell. abiogenesis and evolution and very much connected! Go study Homochirality and Racemic Mixtures!
@5tonyvvvv No one says life came from time and chance. You must be ignorant of what science actually says, or are dishonest, if you think anyone claims that.
You're right, you can't have evolution without life. However, if you take a look around you will find that we do have life. We've kinda got that one covered. Evolution and abiogenesis are connected; they're both relating to life, and they're both part of our natural history. However, one does not depend upon the other to be true.
@Impaler1815 Ok, lets hear the naturalistic nonsense explanation that solves Homochirality "Racemic Mixtures" natural selection cant help, because there's nothing to select from! polarized ultraviolet UV rays would not make a difference, amino acids break down to quickly before any reactions could happen!
@5tonyvvvv How are homochirality or racemic mixtures a problem? Do you even know, or are you just repeating what a creationist website told you?
Why should we have to explain absolutely every little detail of our history with 100% proof? It's clear that your reasons for rejecting evolution and abiogenesis are not evidence based, or else you wouldn't accept an alternative based on nothing more than faith.
@compgrad1 Don't waste your time with this Moron! I was trying to explain Chirality and Racemic Mixtures to stubborn Blind Moron! and you cant get to evolution until you have the Chemistry for abiogenesis!!, which is impossible!!
@5tonyvvvv You know hurling insults, caps and exclamation points won't make you any more right. Nor will repeating your original assertion. You must have a strange idea of how science works.
Anyway your argument is flawed, and has a really obvious solution. Racemic mixtures are not toxic to life, and besides, something being toxic to life isn't really relevant when it's not on the same planet as life, is it?
@5tonyvvvv Also, proteins can work if they're not all one type of amino acids. They exist, we've observed this. If a protein works better with one type of amino acids isn't the logical conclusion kind of obvious? Really, I don't even need to say it, and you should already know it.
@5tonyvvvv He has also created a working synthetic Ribosome, the machinery within the cell that decodes the DNA and manufactures the Proteins necessary for creating living cells. He believes that we are within a year or two of artificially creating the first living cell, capable of self-replication, NOT created by nature.
But this is just one of many similar research projects going all over the world today. Cont’d.
@HonestMan395 No Ribosome was created, synthesizing machines were used, Venter and Szostak copy and borrow Pre existing information in controlled laboratories! far from undirected natural processes on a primordial earth! and No one has answered the problem of Chirality!!
@5tonyvvvv Chirality, chirality, there's nothing like chirality. Apologies to T.S. Eliot, but I've been reading your conversations with other people and you sound like a broken record. You have been repeatedly asked to explain in detail what you know about Chirality and Racemic mixtures, but so far you have always ducked the question, which leads me to believe that, in reality, you know nothing about it yourself, other than what you have been told by your creationist websites. Cont'd
@5tonyvvvv and until you do explain exactly what you know, I will continue to have greater trust in people who actually have been doing the work rather than people, who get their beliefs from an ancient text, riddled from start to finish with myths and legends, which have no corroboration in verifiable history, and which was written by superstitious, ignorant peasants, with a world knowledge less than a modern day 10yr old, who were desperately trying to explain their scary world.
@5tonyvvvv I answered the "problem" of chirality, and you have ignored it. Of course my explanation probably went straight over your head, because you don't really understand the argument in the first place. How do you think science works? Do you think Darwin spent 30 years shouting technobabble and calling dissenters morons, before evolution was accepted? Do you think scientists settle disagreements by bickering like children?
@HonestMan395 Go read about it! Nothing was created! Venter and szostak know there experiments have nothing to do with the origin of life! They make these exaggerated ridiculous Media announcements, they created genomes,ribosomes or DNA, which is a LIE! They copied Pre Existing Information!!! Transcription and Digital Code never comes about when you put all your molecules and chemicals in a test tube!!!
@5tonyvvvv As I expected. Dodging the issue again. Actually, I never mentioned Venter. And you never mentioned Prof. George Church, who created the Ribosome, which only goes to show you don't even read the comments properly, you just resort to abuse and dodging the issue.
So! I challenge you again. What do you actually, know about Chirality and Racemic mixtures.
Don't worry, I will "go read about it" as you say. I will check and double check every detail.
@5tonyvvvv Also, I notice that although I called your little book of Fairy tales (The bible) a bunch of myths and legends, you didn't challenge that. I can only assume from that that you agree.
@5tonyvvvv When successful, and, after reading their work I’m sure they will be, it will be the biggest evidence for how life could have started naturally.
After all, if mere humans can create the conditions that allow a living cell to emerge, with just a few chemicals in just a few years, then the idea that nature couldn’t do the same, with a whole planet of chemicals and billions of years to do it in is plainly ridiculous. Cont’d.
@5tonyvvvv It’s the most exciting research since Darwin’s brilliant idea. The fact that you want to stick your head in the religious sand and deny it, is irrelevant. It’s happening, whether you want to believe it or not. Live with it.
@5tonyvvvv Right on bro! We do however need to make sure that everyone understands that our Creation Science views are based on science and evolution is not based on science. I understand that you did try to explain, so you did your part. See you around bud.
@compgrad1 You have not in any way demonstrated creationism to be scientific, nor evolution to be unscientific.
Something isn't scientific when it makes no specific, testable predictions, cannot be falsified, and relies on a mechanism without a shred of evidence, or known possibility. Not to mention the dishonest methodology of creationists themselves.
@Impaler1815 Dishonest methodologies? Like what? I haven't heard of any. But I have on the opposite side of the spectrum. You know... like Ida, The piltdown man, nutcracker, et. al.
Listen, if you want to say we're wrong, fine. You bring your best and we'll match and vice versa. But to say that we're dishonest is a dishonesty itself. A creationist believes in God and is accountable to Him, so if we live we get in trouble. I don't know if you knew that, did you?
@compgrad1 If you don't believe every fossil was faked, what's the point in bringing up fake fossils? Does anyone still use a faked fossil as evidence for evolution?
Are you just going to ignore all my other, still valid, points? You know facts don't disappear when you ignore them.
@compgrad1 That's all I can fit in 500 characters, but I can list more if you still doubt me.
One would think being accountable to an omnipotent all knowing deity would make someone more honest, but these tactics still persist across the entire creationist community.
Your examples of dishonesty are a handful of frauds, that were corrected by scientists, and are no longer used as evidence for evolution. Creationists make little effort to correct other creationist's dishonesty.
@Impaler1815 I can't speak for anyone except for myself. However, if the "creationists" you are accusing of dishonesty are accountable to God, I doubt that they would be deceiving people.
We get atheists attacking us all the time calling us stupid, uneducated, liars, 3rd graders, simple minded, wishful thinkers, they say we believe in magic, etc. But I know better, because they really had something to attack us with, they would. And because they don't they resort to insults.
@compgrad1 When I say the entire creationist community, I mean that quite literally. I would be very surprised if you could name a creationist organisation that does not engage in dishonest methodology.
Do you deny that creationists do the things I listed bellow? Do you deny that they're dishonest tactics? I don't know why they do it, I'm not a mind reader, but creationist dishonesty is plainly evident.
I've seen insults come from both sides, and I agree it does nothing for accuracy.
@compgrad1 Also, if you think we have nothing to "attack" you with besides insults you haven't looked very hard. I've yet to see a scientific publication on evolution that relies on insults to make its point.
@compgrad1 What does you supposedly being censored have to do with anything I just wrote? Are you saying that being supposedly censored makes your dishonesty justified? Did you ever think that what your perceive as censorship is because of your dishonesty?
There's no evidence that you're actually being censored. You're welcome to the same scientific process that evolution goes through, though you prefer the dishonest methodologies I mentioned before.
@compgrad1 You can claim dishonesty is unchristian, and that you don't do it, as much as you like. But it's all totally contradicted by the fact that you all use dishonesty all the time! Even you have resorted the the dishonest methods I listed.
You can get grant money, easily. You have some of the richest, most powerful people in America on your side. You have lots of public support. You spent $27 million on a creation museum.
@Impaler1815 Oh yeah, and by the way $27 million is nothing, that's probably what one of your icons make on each of their books. Now how's that for balance?
@compgrad1 $27 million is nothing? Do you really think you can't perform a few experiments for $27 million? Are your experiments performed in the kitchen of the Taj Mahal? Do you record your results on the back of the Magna Carta? How much money do you think exists in this world? More importantly, do you think someone would spend that much money on a something that isn't getting results?
@Impaler1815 I don't know what kind of results you expect to get, but if we're talking scientifically, we need an electron microscope, we probably need some other high tech stuff as well. Now, if you call "research" just going down to the public library, then that's a different story.
@compgrad1 So you don't actually know what research creationists will do, but you're sure they don't have enough money for it. Are you saying you can't stop your dishonest methodology without an electron microscope? Is an electron microscope going to help you define "information"? Will it help you actually submit to peer review?
Also, check your prices. A good electron microscope can cost around $200,000.
@Impaler1815 I am not a research scientist, I don't know how Creationists, Id'ers, nor evolutionists will tackle their researches. I know that it is more complex than what we layman do; they will require way more equipment, buildings, lawyers, and staffing to do research. Like I said earlier, it's not a simple trip to your local library.
@compgrad1 So if you don't actually know how they do their research, how do you know they don't have enough funding for it? More importantly, how do you know that's what's stopping them from being honest? Is it your lack of funding that stops you from submitting to peer review?
Look... There is a reason people like you and other creationists may be called liars, uneducated or stupid.
Because when in this debate, you are either lying, stupid, or uneducated.
The claims brought to the table are long debunked on creationist side and people bring them up. Either they are lying and know there is rebuttals and they are saying something wrong, or don't know/didn't do research so they are ignorant of the subject.
@JamesCizuz So, when we debate we are lying, stupid or undecuated.... ok. Just like that? So my question again: Why won't your guys debate Meyers, Craig and the sort?
@JamesCizuz Apparently you can't read using common grammatics... I clearly stated that you guys resort to calling us one of the three or the three, but I rest my case. I don't know who you are or your credentials, but I'm sure Meyers would destroy your arguments. And please if you want to continue our conversation, don't use bad language. Craig is another one I'd like to see debate one of your top guys. Heck, I'd even make some popcorn!
'So, when we debate we are lying, stupid or undecuated....'
Where does it state you saying it's one or the other?
Anyone, no Meyers certainly wouldn't, but even if you could you are missing the point. The point is, your side is wrong and has not provided one shred of evidence is 2000 years. The point is, we want new evidence, not tried and torn apart already debunked bullshit. We want ACTUAL evidence. We don't want you to assert it's true; prove it.
@JamesCizuz 2000 years certainly is a long time, but not long enough considering you believe in 4.3 billion years and neither have you provided any evidence. The best they could come up with is that it rained on the rocks and this big soup of chemicals formed on the oceans and then a lightning hit it and poof, life began. C'mon, it's got to better than that if God did not do it.
@compgrad1 You may laugh at your caricature of abiogenesis, but we actually have evidence that it can occur. We know that certain conditions will lead to organic molecules forming and polymerising. What evidence do you have that anything has ever been thought into existence?
@Impaler1815 You don't have evidence that it can occur, you have a theoretical protocol that if you follow and remove all the crucial ingredients, you get amino acids. A far cry from life itself.
@compgrad1 Did I mention Miller? No. There are far more abiogenesis experiments than that.
I never said you have to create life. I said life has to be thought into existence. That's what you believe happened. Obviously I don't expect anyone to be able to do it. Don't you think it's a tad dishonest to believe one thing with literally no known possibility or evidence, and reject something else because you think it doesn't have enough evidence?
@compgrad1 (Looks in general dating method book for 5% of the dating methods used) 2.1 Uranium-lead dating method 2.2 Samarium-neodymium dating method 2.3 Potassium-argon dating method 2.4 Rubidium-strontium dating method 2.5 Uranium-thorium dating method 2.6 Radiocarbon dating method 2.7 Fission track dating method 2.8 Chlorine-36 dating method 2.9 Luminescence dating methods Yeah, all they do is look for stains on rocks. Seriously you are a fucking moron.
@JamesCizuz I don't understand dating techniques, I admit it, but how can you be sure that it's accurate if you can't double check it against something of known age?
@compgrad1 They do check it against things of known age. Plus they check it with other radiometric dating methods, and non-radiometric dating methods. If a dating method is unreliable what are the odds that all the relevant dating methods agree?
@Impaler1815 So you have something that x billions of years old to check against? What you described is used to check your methodologies, but I don't think it qualifies for absolutism. Like I said, dating is not my forte, but how to you know what element the sample started out with it, if you are checking for the amount that is left? That is what we Creationists have a problem with in these techniques.
@compgrad1 Only you believe in absolute truths. Science does not. Sure we could be wrong, but that would require every single dating method to have been contaminated to give the wrong date. They would also have to be contaminated in such a way as to all agree with each other at every stage. Not to mention varves, ice layers and tree rings would have to have formed faster, and again, at a rate that agrees with other dating methods. So isn't it more scientific to say they're accurate?
@Impaler1815 I was reading National Geographic today, and guess what? I was right. The article had a scientist complaining about the cost of C14 dating. He said it cost $500 to process an olive pit. Tree rings indicate growth season. There could be more than two a year. Ice layers, the same, because you can have a freeze, a warm up and back and forth.
@compgrad1 You were right about what? About the cost of research? So you're saying with that $27 million creationists can only perform several thousand dating experiments? Is that why you don't submit to peer review, because you need several thousand more?
Dating methods can be slightly off sometimes, but that doesn't explain how they would all be off in such a way as to all agree with each other. We can tell when an extra ring/layer has formed, unless every other sample does so as well.
@Impaler1815 It turns out I was right again. I just received an email that a Creationist has been censored by an evolutionist. If you don't believe me plug this on google and read you heart's worth: Journal Apologizes and Pays $10,000 After Censoring Article.
@compgrad1 I assume you read that article off "evolution news". Funny how that article neglects to mention the "evolutionist blogger" email included a link to an in depth, scientific refutation. It makes it look like the journal said it was the blogger's word alone that caused the retraction. It isn't censorship to claim an unscientific article is unscientific. That's the way science works.
@compgrad1 Don't you think if it was rejected solely for being written by a creationist it would have rejected a little earlier, like before it was published? My point still stands, you have no examples of a paper that was rejected on unscientific grounds.
You still haven't explained why the dating methods agree with each other, or what the cost of dating has to do with anything.
@compgrad1 Oh easy. Since there are a shit ton of different dating methods they can use multiple dating methods for the same sample and if they all coverage on a single answer it's a more established answer. See there are so many dating methods because each sample is different with what we are working with. Some samples are checked with 10~ dating methods in multiple locations and all different tests produce same range as the others.
@compgrad1 On example of dating is radiometric dating which relies on the half life of certain elements. A half life means that in X years half of the substance will have decayed away. We do cross checks and multiple sample points to stop any bias that may exist because in some cases a sample may have been contaminated. Whats awesome is if it's contaminated for one dating method, others still work.
@compgrad1 You must have a very low opinion of the scientific community. Don't you think they've already considered that? If you did some research you would know this. There are lots of dating methods, and I don't know the mechanisms of all of them, but I know that in the case of potassium argon dating argon, being a gas, will escape from liquid lava. All that leaves is potassium. When lava solidifies the gas can no longer escape, meaning it builds up, effectively starting the clock.
@Impaler1815 I don't think I have a low opinion of the scientific community. I love science and love to discuss it. It's that you and I are on the opposite sides. Dating methods do not work because like I already stated, you don't know what you started with. This is fact. You may have your views about it, but it is true that we don't know what we started out with. Take diamond. There should be no C14 in there, but it's been found. Now where do you go?
@compgrad1 You're either ignoring what I say, or are making an effort to interpret it as something different. I just explained how one particular method allows us to determine the amount of radioactive substance there was to begin with. Showing a few examples of contaminated samples doesn't mean every single other sample is wrong. It's a prime example of creationist dishonesty.
@compgrad1 What on earth gives you the impression that the C14 levels in diamond should be zero? The C14 levels decline over time in biomass as the levels in biomass are unusually high - however the normal c14 level they are declining to is NOT zero. By the sound of it you read a half page description of C14 dating - and then made presumptions on the contents of the 1400 page book on the subject.
The very nature of radiometric dating on half life and telling how much was there is we know certain elements occur naturally, and certain elements can only occur during decay of natural elements to other elements and isotopes. So an enclosed bubble of say 40%argon and 60% potassium would tell you how much argon decayed into that certain isotope of potassium that doesn't form unless through decaying.
That would be one way, and we also cross check multiple sources to make sure they give consistent results to lessen the chance of anomalies or contamination. Some dating methods leave certain traces that are used to detect how much was there, and how much there is now, from decay, to volume, to surroundings, to elements surrounding etc.
There are around 500~ dating methods all with different conditions and tests. Some samples are crosschecked with multiple techniques.
As an example, some dating methods work on some samples, and some don't. We know which ones work for what samples and only use those ones of course. The reason the others don't work could be that part of sample is contaminated, or doesn't have the dating methods required material.
The thing I love is any of these dating methods would be completely useless used alone, but when used in conjunction, cross checked, multiple areas of samples, and multiple methods... Well it's true.
You don't realize that there are things that are concrete. The earth being a oblique sphereoid, that is going to stay. The earth beign 4.47 billion years old will stay, until it gets older and the date needs to be increased.
See I find it hilarious; you are among the idiot crowd saying "OH WELL YOU BETTER WATCH OUT, THIS GUY I KNOW IS SMART AND I KNOW HE WOULD BEAT YOU". That is silly, proves nothing if true, and makes you look like you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
So again; you may if you want post some peer reviewed articles that go for your position. When you don't find them you can write another incohearent response again I guess.
@JamesCizuz Like I said, I'd like to see Craig and Meyers be given a shot at your guys. Leave the peer reviewed articles, let's concentrate on the guys debating.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Debating does not equal truth in any sense of the word. Winning a debate doesn't either. Actual data and evidence does, regardless what those two can string together randomly from what they randomly pull out of their ass to make their side look pretty or better is moot and means nothing without hard evidence. So again, I know you'll show your ignorance again, but post some actual evidence.
@compgrad1 I'll ask again. What's wrong with debating you in peer review? What advantages does live debate have that peer review does not. Peer review puts your ideas under proper scrutiny, with no time limits, and you can follow references and check for accuracy.
@Impaler1815 Peer review? Maybe because like you said, we Creationionists don't have the access. Plus why not debate on something exciting new discoveries instead of old boring evolutionist insults coming from the evo camp.
@compgrad1 Ummm, I said you do have access to peer review. You have the same access everyone has. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from submitting to peer review. You just don't want to. New discoveries are always debated, in peer review. That's the whole point of peer review.
I'll ask for the third time, what's wrong with peer review? What does live debate offer in accuracy that peer review does not?
We are not attacking you, we are attacking the lack of effort on your side. Our side has peer review research where thousands of scientists spend time trying to disprove every paper or research article put out and if they can't find issue or if it's all sound and verified and they all did the tests they sign it. Yet still creationists, which have not one paper pass peer review try to equate there guess with an established theory or model of reality.
@JamesCizuz So, why won't your guys debate Stephen C. Meyer, if we are lacking efforts? He's a pretty good I.D. guy, I am a creationist but we have almost the same views. Maybe we don't have nearly as many peer reviewed papers because we are a minority and we are censored. Go figure...
@compgrad1 Your people are welcome to debate, in the place that matters: Peer review. Only your kind avoids peer review because you don't want your ideas to be properly scrutinised. The only debate you will ever take is live, public debate.
The reason you don't have peer reviewed papers is because you never submit to peer review. It's not like you submit your research, and it keeps getting rejected on unscientific grounds. You simply never submit in the first place.
@compgrad1 How can you get held back when you never even try in the first place? I know what you "honestly think", but that doesn't make it true. There is no evidence that you are censored, there is no evidence that you're not privileged to the same scientific process evolution goes through. All you have to say you're censored is a few baseless assertions that fall apart under scrutiny.
Your kind is creationists. You seem to want to be a collective, so you get referred to as one.
@compgrad1 Have you looked into any of the cases Expelled presents? Every case of a creationist being censored has been found to be exaggerated, deserved, or completely made up. Sternberg tried to bypass peer review. Gonzalez was lacking credentials. Crocker served the rest of her tenure and it wasn't renewed. Under no case did the actual scientific data have anything to do with it. Do you even care what the other side has to say?
@Impaler1815 So you are insisting that these Expelled scientists are lies. That's a pretty serious statement to be made. We understand that scientists who subscribe to Creationism are being censored. That's why you don't see our peer reviews. I don't know where you get your facts.
It's annoying, and your side has no delay in calling us down either. We don't result to insults until your side starts it. In a debate there is no chance either side can win. Whatever the debate results are, or whatever people think or how well you did, there is still a side that is right, and a side that is wrong. The creationist side to this moment, in 2000 years has 0 evidence for anything supernatural... ANYWHERE.
@JamesCizuz It is pretty annoying. Just do a search for creation science on youtube and see how many jokes are played. I know Creationists can win, it's a no brainer.
@compgrad1 It's not up to us to prove God doesn't exist. If that were the case any unfalsifiable claim would be considered true. It's up to you, the one making the claim that an all powerful being lives in another dimension, to provide evidence. All you have is arguments from ignorance: we don't know certain things about our side, therefore your side must be true, despite literally no positive evidence or known possibility.
@Impaler1815 Arguments of ignorance? Have you ever read explanations of how humans evolved? They use terms like: we think, possibly, perhaps, there's a chance, it could be... There's never a precise tone. We on the other hand, we affirm the Existence of God. We don't use science to prove God, we prove science and everything else with God.
Atheists should be the ones showing arguments; Skeptics and agnostics are more logical, since they admit they don't know or can't prove either way.
@compgrad1 So you equate not 100% certainty with total ignorance? Interesting. Science doesn't deal in absolute truths.
You may claim to be 100% sure of Gods existence, but when you look at the actual evidence, there is none at all. Simply claiming something, no matter how fervently, doesn't make it true. How does one "prove science with God"?
@Impaler1815 WOW! You're stubborn Faith shows! creationist websites?, I have been studying this problem for most of my life! over 30 years! Maybe your atheist sites have told you its not a problem. Its the biggest problem facing naturalistic origins.Go study it!
some sweet info here
MrJonkelp 5 days ago
you have some great stuff here
osclarkos 1 week ago
interesting video and very informative
alexasmithy 1 week ago
Yes, abiogenesis is just a collection of hypotheses... and the hypotheses are unscientific crap! Go back and listen to your video. You're telling a story... most or all of it made up... based on your presupposition that "evolution MUST HAVE happened". Also, notice that no matter how far-out or fantastic your unsubstantiated claims are... as long as deep time is involved, well then, it surely must have happened. Science news flash... time has no creative power.
JeffAY57 1 week ago
@JeffAY57 Every scientific idea had to start out as a hypothesis. They're actually an important part of science.
I'm sorry you don't like deep time, but all evidence points to it, so science uses it.
Impaler1815 1 week ago
Why does this vid look like a bunch of Lego's assembling themselves.Part 1 assembled itself into part 2. Then came part 3, which attached itself to part 1 and 2. Then along came part 4, which.......... Do you really believe what you are saying? You SOUND intelligent like you know what you talking about. You don't have any idea. Neither does any person who ever walked the earth. Sorry to disappoint you. We humans just are not intelligent enough to catch up with living nature. Nice try.
stevebee92653 2 months ago
@stevebee92653 We do actually have ideas. We go through a lot of effort testing those ideas, and lots of them have evidence. You have ideas, but you make no effort to test them, and have absolutely no evidence they're correct.
We may not know everything about nature, because we don't have access to every piece of evidence. However, science and logic will always get you closer to the right answer than faith.
Impaler1815 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Impaler1815 Man can engineer molecules! It shows how it takes INTELLIGENCE in controlled laboratory conditions to mimic, manipulate, plagiarize a cell's Design! Scientists COPY genetic sequences!! They dont create anything!!
Its all Man made Synthetic chemistry! and it has nothing to do with the origin of life!!!! Wake up atheist MORONS! Homochirality is a disaster for any sort of naturalistic origins!
5tonyvvvv 2 weeks ago
Like I said, drop a large bag of Hydrogen into space and expect Pee-wee Herman to come riding out on his bicycle.
loonpolice1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Im not a creationists. But you are boring as HELL.
Tuber77 3 months ago
so, could someone explain to me how the earth was even formed? and where the materials came from? I kinda like to start things at the begining.
ResidentRetro 3 months ago
@ResidentRetro Wikipedia - Timeline of the big bang. I hope you weren't expecting it to be simple.
Impaler1815 3 months ago
The Conflict of Science and Religion is a contrivance, a contest between who will be King and who will not be King. The Religious strike a fear in the heart of some who will think about the Inquisition. Atheism strikes fear in those who will think about Stalinist Russia. These are the Bells and Whistles of our times. They will not go away by torturing either Religion or Science. As a Catholic , I find I have enough room in my brains for parallel existences and not getting fanatical
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
Science and Nature are not equivocal. Nature exists without Science, Science cannot exist without Nature. Science cannot teach us what Values we ought to have as Human Beings. But Nature, innately teaches us about Human Values. So the idea of Science being equal to Nature is a misnomer and cause of significant historical damage done by the mysticism of Scientific Theories of Politics and Human Behavior. It turns ourselves into our own experiments, no better than Laboratory Rats.
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
"Fallacy of ProjectIon" more baloney without real evidence . Dreams become Reality , then fade back into Dreams and become Reality and fade into Dreams and become Reality. This is the Religious Power of the Mind. God has no material or metaphysical limits. You cannot use Psychological Sciences to destroy that which can move from Material, into Ethereal, and move back into Critical Thought which provokes Religious Feelings. You lose, you are an idiot.
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
Generally, what people hold as Sacred, is that which they find they cannot compromise upon. Natural Law has caused the Family Unit to be a Unity for Nurture. And Nurture is an outside agency to biological transmissions of behavior in the DNA. Such as, if the Mama Bear, abandons her cubs and will not care for them, no amount of Natural Selection to the Mutations of the Species can avert instantly the Extinction of the Creature. Religion is the awareness of Natural Law over Free Will.
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
People think that Civilization arose first and then they had religions. No ! Archaeological digs in Turkey proves that over ten thousand years ago the first signs of Civilization began surrounding the purpose of building a Temple of Worship. It is Religion that built Civilization , creating a Placebo of Purpose to cause human beings to connect, rather than be hunter gatherers who roamed independently. You folks have no education , that is why you are all ignorant.
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
@2008Maricel Evolutionists don't accept defeat because we haven't actually been defeated. If you had any arguments besides PRATTs that fall apart when you apply any sort of critical thinking, we'd be able to take you seriously. Did you actually think about anything in that video? Do you believe the Miller experiment was the only ever abiogenesis experiment? Do you believe a substance only produced by life, and a substance toxic to life, is relevant when life doesn't yet exist?
Impaler1815 5 months ago 7
Facepalm at creationists.
retrogamerist 5 months ago
@CarmineFragione Actually testing has shown that DNA can under heavy stresses of gravity, and first off, PROVE what your saying, how do you know god designed all this?
retrogamerist 5 months ago
No DNA could ever be made in the natural environment of the Earth, just as much no PC and the Silicon Chips as designed, which is much less a feat than the DNA, that could never be made in the Earthly Realm of such natural forces that would destroy any attempt at design or assembly. That is why such research is going on in outer space, in zero gravity to study how such delicate designs that begin life are made in the outer clouds and waters of the Heavens, where God's fingers work it out
CarmineFragione 5 months ago
ABIOGENESIS has to have some truth to it, because the Biblical saying is that God mingled the Mystery of God's Wind or Breath, into the Dust of the ground called the Earth and their mingling together built up the life forms. DNA must have been made in the heavens by Solar Winds and rained upon the Earth and the Tides of the Oceans rolled them up into earthly matter that encapsulated them and from there they cannibalized, capitalized and became the Genomes that built up the many living things
CarmineFragione 5 months ago
@CarmineFragione Why must?
retrogamerist 5 months ago
@retrogamerist "Why Must" The Word says it is the Glory of God to conceal a thing and the Glory of Kings to find them out. That is why !!! God has left a sign of Creation as a Work, not just an idea, but God worked the design into being and so a design and pathway , the primordial trail of past events left in the Universe, declare the works of God and so that is " WHY MUST" The DNA cannot be created under heavy stresses of gravity, and physical forces that stifle the act.
CarmineFragione 5 months ago
@retrogamerist Babies upon birth have religious feelings, that they project from their former known condition in the womb, being warm, fed and safe, through a crisis of crying out, and finding eternal conditions of Love ,from the Nurturing Parents. And thus the baby finds God , in the relationship that extend from the physical definition of the womb to the outside agencies that resemble the first conditions, and after crying out and being accepted with love, the child has Religion.
CarmineFragione 5 months ago
@CarmineFragione "Babies upon birth have religious feelings" Which explains perfectly why:
* It took thousands of years for religion to form among humans,
* Those religions took thousands of years to develop the notion of any supernatural entities,
* It took a few hundred years for those entities to be recognized as gods in those that did,
* It took a few thousand years for the multiple gods to be combined into one god,
* And that the "one god" is still incoherent after thousands of years.
onijester56 4 months ago
(cont)
"they project from their former known condition in the womb, being warm, fed and safe, through a crisis of crying out" The inside of the human body is naturally warm, tubes provide food essentially by force from the mother, and the womb provides minimal protection (the majority coming from the parent's carefulness). Simply, even if they did project the loss of their conditions, God is not needed to explain the experience.
And I won't get to how you don't know what a religion is.
onijester56 4 months ago
@onijester56 I do know what Religion is, I am Catholic. Religio is a Latin term for the proper conduct one uses when dealing with Sacred Objects. Such as fearing to bow before the King, but not accidentally touch the train of his royal robe, lest there be hell to pay for the transgression. So Religion is about the acceptance of Sacred Values, Absolutes which contrast the Holy from the Profane. You can not shake and throw around a baby, it is a Sacred Object of Values. No ?
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
@CarmineFragione And "religio" is from the earlier meanings:
* To read again (referring to the mythology and scripture)
* To do again (referring to the rituals)
* To bind fast (referring to the social obligations one has within their religion AND the obligation one has to the spiritual)
A modern "religion" has all these parts. The absence of the ritual and myth elements eliminates what a baby has from being a religion even if there were somehow a spiritual aspect.
(cont)
onijester56 4 months ago
(cont)
Now let us forget that and assume that "Religion is about the acceptance of Sacred Values, Absolutes which contrast the Holy from the Profane". There is no 'sacred value' inherent in seeking warmth, food, or safety. They are natural desires, with natural explanations.
Likewise 'love' and 'caring for people' are valuable concepts, but they have biological explanations; they are only 'sacred' to those who want to mark them as 'sacred'.
onijester56 4 months ago
@onijester56 so you are a Sam Harris fan and do not believe in the existence of the Free Will . If nothing then is Sacred to you, and you have no Free Will. what are doing alive ?
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
@CarmineFragione 1) Non-sequitur. Even if I were a Sam Harris fan (which, fyi, I haven't heard more than a few random half-minute snippets of him and never picked up a book by him, so I can't very well be a 'fan'), that would have no impact on the validity of my etymological and scholarly analyses OR my analyzing your claims as youu present them now.
2) Non-sequitur and ignorance. Nature provides the epitome of free will: acts only truly have consequence relative to the action.
(cont)
onijester56 4 months ago
(cont)
3) Ignorance/equivocation. Something can be valuable without it being sacred. Cooperation is valuable not just because some divine entity says that it is, but because of the benefits/rewards/etc (both short-term and long-term) that it has to those who cooperate with others. Not only has this been observed, but also has it been observed that OTHER ORGANISMS tend to realize the value of cooperation before humans do.
I don't need the "sacred". I have less-primitive bases for values.
onijester56 4 months ago
@onijester56 When you are just going around in circles, does it matter if you go right or left ?
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
@CarmineFragione Fallacy of Projection. Now actually deal with the topics.
You can begin by explaining how an entity whose philosophy (if it can be said to have any philosophy, as anything resembling a formal/reflective consciousness is underdeveloped for up to several years after birth) lacks scriptural, obligatory, mythological, and ritual aspects and at best bases any spiritual aspect on ignorance can be said to have a religion when a philosophy must have those aspects to be a religion.
onijester56 4 months ago
@onijester56 There was a 430 years gap between the Israelites of Genesis and the Israelites of Exodus, There is no history of Egypt's account of the Jews, except a few fragments. So an undifferentiated belief system that is simply diffused into general social histories, can re emerge due to pressures, ( the Jews had become enslaved in Egypt) Aspects of Nurture can assemble a religion , diffuse into general sentiments and collect back into a definitive faith for a Nation.
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
@CarmineFragione Nice history you present. Not like I didn't learn it doing research and figuring out the answers to the questions you are avoiding (and much more). However that DOES NOT deal with the question. So instead, I'll put it so you have no way to misunderstand it.
How can "Babies upon birth have religious feelings" when all 'feelings' they may have are devoid of the attributes that make something a religion?
onijester56 4 months ago
@onijester56 For the simply challenged people, who cannot get it, Religion is a Morality Play on past Stories of actual people's lives, where information considered sacred to each generation , for survival and the prospects of happiness are transmitted. In the Ancient Times the secrets of Alchemy, including smelting Copper was not sold as "Science" but as part of the Cultural Mysteries, Secrets and hence "Religion" the "Trade Secrets of the Craft" . Religion is Civilization.
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
@onijester56 A baby comes with sacred values embraced not by the baby, but by the parents. The religious feelings about child care, or Nurture, is an adult subject, but when being taught to children, initiatives such as toys, dolls and other teaching devices are used for moral training in the life style of the culture. You think Religion is only about dying and going to Heaven ? Even that thought is a metaphor for daily risings and settings of the Sun ,the Moon and the Stars .
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CarmineFragione "A baby comes with sacred values embraced not by the baby, but by the parents." Then it is NOT THE BABY WHO HAS THE RELIGIOUS FEELINGS.
On the 'sacred', you destroy your definition of "that which they find they cannot compromise upon" by placing it on being taught to them. Experience and new knowledge easily replace and change what one holds as "sacred".
"You think Religion is only about dying and going to Heaven ?" That's it, I'm done. At least read what someone puts.
onijester56 4 months ago
@onijester56 A baby comes with sacred values embraced not by the baby, but by the parents. The religious feelings about child care, or Nurture, is an adult subject, but when being taught to children, initiatives such as toys, dolls and other teaching devices are used for moral training in the life style of the culture. You think Religion is only about dying and going to Heaven ? Even that thought is a metaphor for daily risings and settings of the Sun ,the Moon and the Stars .
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
@onijester56 There was a 430 years gap between the Israelites of Genesis and the Israelites of Exodus, There is no history of Egypt's account of the Jews, except a few fragments. So an undifferentiated belief system that is simply diffused into general social histories, can re emerge due to pressures, ( the Jews had become enslaved in Egypt) Aspects of Nurture can assemble a religion , diffuse into general sentiments and collect back into a definitive faith for a Nation.
CarmineFragione 4 months ago
Religion is just a hidey-hole for the morally fearful, afraid of death.
Putting your faith and life into the hands of an imaginary celestial protector is the ultimate cop-out from taking any responsibility for your own life.
It's the ultimate comfort blanket. All you have to do is find a nice dark corner of your life, pull the blanket around you, shut your eyes, stick your thumb in your mouth and cry to daddy to make all the nasty things go away.
HonestMan395 8 months ago
so many assuptions....miraculous!
grfield1 8 months ago
@Impaler1815 Sorry buddy... I few days ago, I could not for the sweat in me post the correction comments. I kept on and just noticed that there were 4 copies. I removed the extras and left only one copy, so I don't look like Im trying to spam. Thanks man. We had a good exchange for those few days. Later.
compgrad1 10 months ago
Comment removed
compgrad1 10 months ago
Comment removed
compgrad1 10 months ago
Comment removed
compgrad1 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Impaler1815 CORRECTION:
Not a scenario.... a position. If you're atheist how could something evolve without abiogenesis? Or what abiogenesis progress to without evolution. They do depend on each other if you're an atheist. Else, that'd be an insane atheist.
You seem pretty smart, I can't believe you can't see the connection between these two.
compgrad1 10 months ago
I think you're right, this is over-over-over-oversimplified. Actually, it can also be called wishful thinking. Or spontaneous generation. We can't separate abiogenesis from evo. they're completely interdependent on each other. And they're both false claims. The simplest organism I've seen has over 580k base pairs, do the math on that one!
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1 How are they interdependent? How would the falsification of abiogenesis falsify evolution? It wouldn't, you only think so because A. Your creationist websites have told you so and B. Because it's easier to disprove your enemies if you attack their weakest point.
Do you have anything to back up the assertion that they're false claims?
Even if a 580k base organism was the simplest (it's not), it would be far simpler than an omniscient omnipotent being. Do the math on that.
Impaler1815 10 months ago
@Impaler1815 Evo and Abio depend on each other else you'd be a theistic evolutionist. Actually, my logic tells me that it's impossible. If you multiply 580k * 580k, you'd get a good model on the odds of a perfect assembly of these bases. Also, atheists are always the ones claiming God Doesn't Exist, but can't back up. You're opinion or logic, or whatever sense is telling you that a blind force is responsible for all the intelligence in the world, bc to follow laws there must be intelligence.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1 I agree that an atheist needs to believe in abiogenesis, but that doesn't mean evo and abio depend on each other. Evolution does not equal atheism.
Who says 580K is the simplest replicator? We know for a fact it isn't. Abio is unlikely, but at least we know there's a chance it could happen. We know nothing about the chances of God existing.
Impaler1815 10 months ago
@Impaler1815 I never made that statement. I simply said you would have to be an theistic evolutionist. I do however beg to differ: abio and evo depend on each other b/c you can't have one w/out the other. If abio only, then evo of species is nonexistent, if evo only, then where did the life comes from? That's why they're dependent on each other and this is why I believe that Creation is the only viable solution.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1 By your standards every god ever claimed to be true exists, because they cannot be falsified. We would also have to accept the celestial teapot, ghosts, big foot, literally every unfalsifiable claim.
So you admit that the falsification of abiogenesis would not falsify evolution...Yet you still claim they rely on each other? Why are you clinging to these arguments when you've shown their logical flaw?
Impaler1815 10 months ago
@Impaler1815 Has the teapot ever changed lives? Has it healed anyone? Did it prophesy? It doesn't even have a "book". That is just a simple deception invented to distance people from the True God.
I think you're putting words in my sentences.... I think evo/abio have to go hand n hand. One can't exist w/out the other. I am not clinging to either, I think they are both false, and only showed you why I thought so. Please reread my arguments bc I think you missed something.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1 If God has healed people, changed peoples lives, or fulfill prophecies that would be positive evidence of his existence. Do you have any actual examples of such events? What you claimed isn't that God has positive evidence, it's that we should be providing negative evidence, and that was the claim I refuted. Don't try to move the goal posts with me.
Impaler1815 10 months ago
@compgrad1 You've explained why you believe they're false. I explained why your standards are illogical. I've missed nothing. You yourself admitted there's a situation where evolution could be true, and abiogenesis false (theistic evolution), yet you still say they rely on each other. Evolution requires life. Are you arguing that life doesn't exist, or that life has no beginning?
Impaler1815 10 months ago
@Impaler1815 No, I said that IF you were to believe that abiogenesis may be false, but evolution is true, then you would have to admit that you are a theistic evolution.
Here's what I said earlier >>>""Evo and Abio depend on each other else you'd be a theistic evolutionist.""
That being said, I don't accept theistic evolution, evolution or abiogenesis. I am a Young Earth Creation person. Neither do I believe in the Old Earth Creation. Please forgive any miscommunication.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1 So you say it again, there is a scenario where abiogenesis could be false and evolution true. So in other words they don't depend on each other. why do you find it difficult to consider a hypothetical?
I'm well aware what you believe.
Impaler1815 10 months ago
@Impaler1815 Not a scenario.... a position. If you're atheist how could something evolve without abiogenesis? Or what evolves if there's no abiogenesis. They do depend on each other if you're an atheist. Else, that'd be an insane atheist.
You seem pretty smart, I can't believe you can't see the connection between these two.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1 A position on a scenario.
Of course I believe in abiogenesis. But you acknowledge it's possible to believe in evolution but not abiogenesis, therefore evolution does not depend on abiogenesis. It's simple logic.
Of course there's a connection between them, they're both part of natural science, they're both something atheists believe in, however they're not dependent on each other. How can you not see there's a difference?
Impaler1815 10 months ago
@Impaler1815 I posted a correction of my last statement on your channel comments, it would let me post it here.
I KNOW of the position of theistic evolution, I know what it stands for, BUT I DON'T ACCEPT IT. I think evolution and abiogenesis are both false. If they were to be true like you think they are, how would they not have to be dependent on each other? That's what baffles me. Why do you think evol would not depend on abiogenesis? and vice versa?
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1 I know what you believe, you're a YEC. What you believe doesn't dictate reality.
It baffles me that you do not see such simple logic. You're so devoted to your position that you can't even entertain hypothetical ideas. It's really simple:
There is a position that people believe that involves evolution, but no abiogenesis. (as you agree)
Therefore if abiogenesis were falsified that position would still be viable.
Therefore evolution does not depend on abiogenesis.
Impaler1815 10 months ago
@Impaler1815 You said earlier: " I agree that an atheist needs to believe in abiogenesis,..."
and ... "Of course I believe in abiogenesis" making you an atheist. So you would have to ditch your beliefs. You'd have to become theistic evolutionist in order to accomodate a falsification of abiogenesis.
In that scenario, I agree these two ideas would not be dependent on each other.
However you can't conclude that evo and abiog are not dependent on each.... it's only if one is falsified.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1 That's right, if I believed God created life and it evolved from there I would be a theistic evolutionist. It's called a hypothetical scenario, something that's easy to comprehend if you aren't emotionally attached to your current belief.
So the correct statement is "Atheism depends on abiogenesis and evolution being true"
Not "evolution depends on abiogenesis being true"
Impaler1815 10 months ago
@Impaler1815 RNA forming on a primordial earth is laughable and not science!.. and "This engineered RNA" would break down do to the unstable conditions of it..similar to rats leaving a sinking ship..This artificial RNA..has ZERO chance of further evolving into a living cell.
Activated subunits are used along with templates taken from living sources..its not a geochemical relevant reaction. Intelligence created life not time and chance! Moronic atheist chemistry never works!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@Impaler1815 Racemic mixtures can never be used! Moronic Atheist chemistry never works!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@Impaler1815 You have ZERO testable repeatable Chemistry to back up what you just said!, its all speculation and assumptions, and thats not science!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Oh my, you've obviously never heard of, well, any abiogenesis experiment ever performed. Sure it's not exactly totally proven, however to say that there's been no success at all is totally dishonest.
However, it is 100% honest to say the alternative you're presenting, that life was thought into existence, does have zero evidence and no know possibility.
Impaler1815 8 months ago
@Impaler1815 The chemistry proves Time and chance can Not form life, or even the Building the blocks of life! You can't even get to evolution until you have the first cell. abiogenesis and evolution and very much connected! Go study Homochirality and Racemic Mixtures!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv No one says life came from time and chance. You must be ignorant of what science actually says, or are dishonest, if you think anyone claims that.
You're right, you can't have evolution without life. However, if you take a look around you will find that we do have life. We've kinda got that one covered. Evolution and abiogenesis are connected; they're both relating to life, and they're both part of our natural history. However, one does not depend upon the other to be true.
Impaler1815 8 months ago
@Impaler1815 Ok, lets hear the naturalistic nonsense explanation that solves Homochirality "Racemic Mixtures" natural selection cant help, because there's nothing to select from! polarized ultraviolet UV rays would not make a difference, amino acids break down to quickly before any reactions could happen!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv How are homochirality or racemic mixtures a problem? Do you even know, or are you just repeating what a creationist website told you?
Why should we have to explain absolutely every little detail of our history with 100% proof? It's clear that your reasons for rejecting evolution and abiogenesis are not evidence based, or else you wouldn't accept an alternative based on nothing more than faith.
Impaler1815 8 months ago
@compgrad1 So which of the 10's of thousands of gods did the deed then eh?
splicedenergy 10 months ago
@compgrad1 Don't waste your time with this Moron! I was trying to explain Chirality and Racemic Mixtures to stubborn Blind Moron! and you cant get to evolution until you have the Chemistry for abiogenesis!!, which is impossible!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv You know hurling insults, caps and exclamation points won't make you any more right. Nor will repeating your original assertion. You must have a strange idea of how science works.
Anyway your argument is flawed, and has a really obvious solution. Racemic mixtures are not toxic to life, and besides, something being toxic to life isn't really relevant when it's not on the same planet as life, is it?
Impaler1815 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Also, proteins can work if they're not all one type of amino acids. They exist, we've observed this. If a protein works better with one type of amino acids isn't the logical conclusion kind of obvious? Really, I don't even need to say it, and you should already know it.
Impaler1815 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv He has also created a working synthetic Ribosome, the machinery within the cell that decodes the DNA and manufactures the Proteins necessary for creating living cells. He believes that we are within a year or two of artificially creating the first living cell, capable of self-replication, NOT created by nature.
But this is just one of many similar research projects going all over the world today. Cont’d.
HonestMan395 8 months ago
@HonestMan395 No Ribosome was created, synthesizing machines were used, Venter and Szostak copy and borrow Pre existing information in controlled laboratories! far from undirected natural processes on a primordial earth! and No one has answered the problem of Chirality!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Chirality, chirality, there's nothing like chirality. Apologies to T.S. Eliot, but I've been reading your conversations with other people and you sound like a broken record. You have been repeatedly asked to explain in detail what you know about Chirality and Racemic mixtures, but so far you have always ducked the question, which leads me to believe that, in reality, you know nothing about it yourself, other than what you have been told by your creationist websites. Cont'd
HonestMan395 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv and until you do explain exactly what you know, I will continue to have greater trust in people who actually have been doing the work rather than people, who get their beliefs from an ancient text, riddled from start to finish with myths and legends, which have no corroboration in verifiable history, and which was written by superstitious, ignorant peasants, with a world knowledge less than a modern day 10yr old, who were desperately trying to explain their scary world.
HonestMan395 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv I answered the "problem" of chirality, and you have ignored it. Of course my explanation probably went straight over your head, because you don't really understand the argument in the first place. How do you think science works? Do you think Darwin spent 30 years shouting technobabble and calling dissenters morons, before evolution was accepted? Do you think scientists settle disagreements by bickering like children?
Impaler1815 8 months ago
@HonestMan395 Go read about it! Nothing was created! Venter and szostak know there experiments have nothing to do with the origin of life! They make these exaggerated ridiculous Media announcements, they created genomes,ribosomes or DNA, which is a LIE! They copied Pre Existing Information!!! Transcription and Digital Code never comes about when you put all your molecules and chemicals in a test tube!!!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv As I expected. Dodging the issue again. Actually, I never mentioned Venter. And you never mentioned Prof. George Church, who created the Ribosome, which only goes to show you don't even read the comments properly, you just resort to abuse and dodging the issue.
So! I challenge you again. What do you actually, know about Chirality and Racemic mixtures.
Don't worry, I will "go read about it" as you say. I will check and double check every detail.
Put up or Shut up.
HonestMan395 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Also, I notice that although I called your little book of Fairy tales (The bible) a bunch of myths and legends, you didn't challenge that. I can only assume from that that you agree.
HonestMan395 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv When successful, and, after reading their work I’m sure they will be, it will be the biggest evidence for how life could have started naturally.
After all, if mere humans can create the conditions that allow a living cell to emerge, with just a few chemicals in just a few years, then the idea that nature couldn’t do the same, with a whole planet of chemicals and billions of years to do it in is plainly ridiculous. Cont’d.
HonestMan395 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv It’s the most exciting research since Darwin’s brilliant idea. The fact that you want to stick your head in the religious sand and deny it, is irrelevant. It’s happening, whether you want to believe it or not. Live with it.
Why don’t you look up their work?
HonestMan395 8 months ago
@5tonyvvvv Right on bro! We do however need to make sure that everyone understands that our Creation Science views are based on science and evolution is not based on science. I understand that you did try to explain, so you did your part. See you around bud.
compgrad1 8 months ago
@compgrad1 You have not in any way demonstrated creationism to be scientific, nor evolution to be unscientific.
Something isn't scientific when it makes no specific, testable predictions, cannot be falsified, and relies on a mechanism without a shred of evidence, or known possibility. Not to mention the dishonest methodology of creationists themselves.
Impaler1815 8 months ago
@Impaler1815 Dishonest methodologies? Like what? I haven't heard of any. But I have on the opposite side of the spectrum. You know... like Ida, The piltdown man, nutcracker, et. al.
Listen, if you want to say we're wrong, fine. You bring your best and we'll match and vice versa. But to say that we're dishonest is a dishonesty itself. A creationist believes in God and is accountable to Him, so if we live we get in trouble. I don't know if you knew that, did you?
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 Creationist dishonest methodologies: Claiming a handful of faked fossils is reason to believe every fossil is faked.
Refusing to respond to scientist's frequently asked, extremely relevant, questions eg. What is the quantifiable definition of information?
Repeating assertions without bothering to respond to scientist's refutations. eg. So called examples of irreducible complexity.
Refusing to let their arguments be challenged outside of live public debate.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 We don't believe every fossil is faked, but the fake ones, we do have to expose. Where's Ida? Remember that one?
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 If you don't believe every fossil was faked, what's the point in bringing up fake fossils? Does anyone still use a faked fossil as evidence for evolution?
Are you just going to ignore all my other, still valid, points? You know facts don't disappear when you ignore them.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@compgrad1 That's all I can fit in 500 characters, but I can list more if you still doubt me.
One would think being accountable to an omnipotent all knowing deity would make someone more honest, but these tactics still persist across the entire creationist community.
Your examples of dishonesty are a handful of frauds, that were corrected by scientists, and are no longer used as evidence for evolution. Creationists make little effort to correct other creationist's dishonesty.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 I can't speak for anyone except for myself. However, if the "creationists" you are accusing of dishonesty are accountable to God, I doubt that they would be deceiving people.
We get atheists attacking us all the time calling us stupid, uneducated, liars, 3rd graders, simple minded, wishful thinkers, they say we believe in magic, etc. But I know better, because they really had something to attack us with, they would. And because they don't they resort to insults.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 When I say the entire creationist community, I mean that quite literally. I would be very surprised if you could name a creationist organisation that does not engage in dishonest methodology.
Do you deny that creationists do the things I listed bellow? Do you deny that they're dishonest tactics? I don't know why they do it, I'm not a mind reader, but creationist dishonesty is plainly evident.
I've seen insults come from both sides, and I agree it does nothing for accuracy.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@compgrad1 Also, if you think we have nothing to "attack" you with besides insults you haven't looked very hard. I've yet to see a scientific publication on evolution that relies on insults to make its point.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 Just like I told the other guy, we are a minority and perhaps a little censored.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 What does you supposedly being censored have to do with anything I just wrote? Are you saying that being supposedly censored makes your dishonesty justified? Did you ever think that what your perceive as censorship is because of your dishonesty?
There's no evidence that you're actually being censored. You're welcome to the same scientific process that evolution goes through, though you prefer the dishonest methodologies I mentioned before.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 No, I have not thought of it that way. I don't think that we have any reason to be dishonest. We are Christians!
We don't get grant money in other words, we have nothing to lose.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 You can claim dishonesty is unchristian, and that you don't do it, as much as you like. But it's all totally contradicted by the fact that you all use dishonesty all the time! Even you have resorted the the dishonest methods I listed.
You can get grant money, easily. You have some of the richest, most powerful people in America on your side. You have lots of public support. You spent $27 million on a creation museum.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 Oh yeah, and by the way $27 million is nothing, that's probably what one of your icons make on each of their books. Now how's that for balance?
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 $27 million is nothing? Do you really think you can't perform a few experiments for $27 million? Are your experiments performed in the kitchen of the Taj Mahal? Do you record your results on the back of the Magna Carta? How much money do you think exists in this world? More importantly, do you think someone would spend that much money on a something that isn't getting results?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 $27 million is nothing when it comes to research. Are you in the field of science? Because if you are, I'd expect a little more sense.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 So are you saying you can't perform any research with $27 million? I ask again, what the hell are you going to spend that much money on?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 I don't know what kind of results you expect to get, but if we're talking scientifically, we need an electron microscope, we probably need some other high tech stuff as well. Now, if you call "research" just going down to the public library, then that's a different story.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 So you don't actually know what research creationists will do, but you're sure they don't have enough money for it. Are you saying you can't stop your dishonest methodology without an electron microscope? Is an electron microscope going to help you define "information"? Will it help you actually submit to peer review?
Also, check your prices. A good electron microscope can cost around $200,000.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 I am not a research scientist, I don't know how Creationists, Id'ers, nor evolutionists will tackle their researches. I know that it is more complex than what we layman do; they will require way more equipment, buildings, lawyers, and staffing to do research. Like I said earlier, it's not a simple trip to your local library.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 So if you don't actually know how they do their research, how do you know they don't have enough funding for it? More importantly, how do you know that's what's stopping them from being honest? Is it your lack of funding that stops you from submitting to peer review?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@compgrad1
Look... There is a reason people like you and other creationists may be called liars, uneducated or stupid.
Because when in this debate, you are either lying, stupid, or uneducated.
The claims brought to the table are long debunked on creationist side and people bring them up. Either they are lying and know there is rebuttals and they are saying something wrong, or don't know/didn't do research so they are ignorant of the subject.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@JamesCizuz So, when we debate we are lying, stupid or undecuated.... ok. Just like that? So my question again: Why won't your guys debate Meyers, Craig and the sort?
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1
No, do not twist my words. I said you are either lying, uneducated or stupid. One of the three, or a combination of the three, not all three.
Also I would debate them, and they are also not impressive using the same old fucking arguments.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@JamesCizuz Apparently you can't read using common grammatics... I clearly stated that you guys resort to calling us one of the three or the three, but I rest my case. I don't know who you are or your credentials, but I'm sure Meyers would destroy your arguments. And please if you want to continue our conversation, don't use bad language. Craig is another one I'd like to see debate one of your top guys. Heck, I'd even make some popcorn!
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1
Aparently I can't read?
'So, when we debate we are lying, stupid or undecuated....'
Where does it state you saying it's one or the other?
Anyone, no Meyers certainly wouldn't, but even if you could you are missing the point. The point is, your side is wrong and has not provided one shred of evidence is 2000 years. The point is, we want new evidence, not tried and torn apart already debunked bullshit. We want ACTUAL evidence. We don't want you to assert it's true; prove it.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@JamesCizuz 2000 years certainly is a long time, but not long enough considering you believe in 4.3 billion years and neither have you provided any evidence. The best they could come up with is that it rained on the rocks and this big soup of chemicals formed on the oceans and then a lightning hit it and poof, life began. C'mon, it's got to better than that if God did not do it.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 You may laugh at your caricature of abiogenesis, but we actually have evidence that it can occur. We know that certain conditions will lead to organic molecules forming and polymerising. What evidence do you have that anything has ever been thought into existence?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 You don't have evidence that it can occur, you have a theoretical protocol that if you follow and remove all the crucial ingredients, you get amino acids. A far cry from life itself.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 Removing crucial ingredients? Why would one remove a crucial ingredient?
Sure we haven't actually created life, but what have you done? When has there ever been a case as so much as an atom being thought into existence?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 Read up on muller's experiment and see how he achieved what he did by doing what.
I never claimed I created nor am able to create anything. You guys did by claiming you've made amino acids and last year DNA. Remember?
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 Did I mention Miller? No. There are far more abiogenesis experiments than that.
I never said you have to create life. I said life has to be thought into existence. That's what you believe happened. Obviously I don't expect anyone to be able to do it. Don't you think it's a tad dishonest to believe one thing with literally no known possibility or evidence, and reject something else because you think it doesn't have enough evidence?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@JamesCizuz I don't understand dating techniques, I admit it, but how can you be sure that it's accurate if you can't double check it against something of known age?
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 They do check it against things of known age. Plus they check it with other radiometric dating methods, and non-radiometric dating methods. If a dating method is unreliable what are the odds that all the relevant dating methods agree?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 So you have something that x billions of years old to check against? What you described is used to check your methodologies, but I don't think it qualifies for absolutism. Like I said, dating is not my forte, but how to you know what element the sample started out with it, if you are checking for the amount that is left? That is what we Creationists have a problem with in these techniques.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 Only you believe in absolute truths. Science does not. Sure we could be wrong, but that would require every single dating method to have been contaminated to give the wrong date. They would also have to be contaminated in such a way as to all agree with each other at every stage. Not to mention varves, ice layers and tree rings would have to have formed faster, and again, at a rate that agrees with other dating methods. So isn't it more scientific to say they're accurate?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 I was reading National Geographic today, and guess what? I was right. The article had a scientist complaining about the cost of C14 dating. He said it cost $500 to process an olive pit. Tree rings indicate growth season. There could be more than two a year. Ice layers, the same, because you can have a freeze, a warm up and back and forth.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 You were right about what? About the cost of research? So you're saying with that $27 million creationists can only perform several thousand dating experiments? Is that why you don't submit to peer review, because you need several thousand more?
Dating methods can be slightly off sometimes, but that doesn't explain how they would all be off in such a way as to all agree with each other. We can tell when an extra ring/layer has formed, unless every other sample does so as well.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 It turns out I was right again. I just received an email that a Creationist has been censored by an evolutionist. If you don't believe me plug this on google and read you heart's worth: Journal Apologizes and Pays $10,000 After Censoring Article.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 I assume you read that article off "evolution news". Funny how that article neglects to mention the "evolutionist blogger" email included a link to an in depth, scientific refutation. It makes it look like the journal said it was the blogger's word alone that caused the retraction. It isn't censorship to claim an unscientific article is unscientific. That's the way science works.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@compgrad1 Don't you think if it was rejected solely for being written by a creationist it would have rejected a little earlier, like before it was published? My point still stands, you have no examples of a paper that was rejected on unscientific grounds.
You still haven't explained why the dating methods agree with each other, or what the cost of dating has to do with anything.
Impaler1815 7 months ago 3
@compgrad1 Oh easy. Since there are a shit ton of different dating methods they can use multiple dating methods for the same sample and if they all coverage on a single answer it's a more established answer. See there are so many dating methods because each sample is different with what we are working with. Some samples are checked with 10~ dating methods in multiple locations and all different tests produce same range as the others.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@compgrad1 On example of dating is radiometric dating which relies on the half life of certain elements. A half life means that in X years half of the substance will have decayed away. We do cross checks and multiple sample points to stop any bias that may exist because in some cases a sample may have been contaminated. Whats awesome is if it's contaminated for one dating method, others still work.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@JamesCizuz One question we have is: How do you know how much you started out with?
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 You must have a very low opinion of the scientific community. Don't you think they've already considered that? If you did some research you would know this. There are lots of dating methods, and I don't know the mechanisms of all of them, but I know that in the case of potassium argon dating argon, being a gas, will escape from liquid lava. All that leaves is potassium. When lava solidifies the gas can no longer escape, meaning it builds up, effectively starting the clock.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 I don't think I have a low opinion of the scientific community. I love science and love to discuss it. It's that you and I are on the opposite sides. Dating methods do not work because like I already stated, you don't know what you started with. This is fact. You may have your views about it, but it is true that we don't know what we started out with. Take diamond. There should be no C14 in there, but it's been found. Now where do you go?
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 You're either ignoring what I say, or are making an effort to interpret it as something different. I just explained how one particular method allows us to determine the amount of radioactive substance there was to begin with. Showing a few examples of contaminated samples doesn't mean every single other sample is wrong. It's a prime example of creationist dishonesty.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@compgrad1 What on earth gives you the impression that the C14 levels in diamond should be zero? The C14 levels decline over time in biomass as the levels in biomass are unusually high - however the normal c14 level they are declining to is NOT zero. By the sound of it you read a half page description of C14 dating - and then made presumptions on the contents of the 1400 page book on the subject.
neverfearchrisishere 5 months ago
@compgrad1 Couple ways.
The very nature of radiometric dating on half life and telling how much was there is we know certain elements occur naturally, and certain elements can only occur during decay of natural elements to other elements and isotopes. So an enclosed bubble of say 40%argon and 60% potassium would tell you how much argon decayed into that certain isotope of potassium that doesn't form unless through decaying.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@compgrad1
That would be one way, and we also cross check multiple sources to make sure they give consistent results to lessen the chance of anomalies or contamination. Some dating methods leave certain traces that are used to detect how much was there, and how much there is now, from decay, to volume, to surroundings, to elements surrounding etc.
There are around 500~ dating methods all with different conditions and tests. Some samples are crosschecked with multiple techniques.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@compgrad1
As an example, some dating methods work on some samples, and some don't. We know which ones work for what samples and only use those ones of course. The reason the others don't work could be that part of sample is contaminated, or doesn't have the dating methods required material.
The thing I love is any of these dating methods would be completely useless used alone, but when used in conjunction, cross checked, multiple areas of samples, and multiple methods... Well it's true.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@compgrad1
You don't realize that there are things that are concrete. The earth being a oblique sphereoid, that is going to stay. The earth beign 4.47 billion years old will stay, until it gets older and the date needs to be increased.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@JamesCizuz Thing is, how you get the 4.47 billion years of age.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1
Oh Jesus fucking Christ go read a fucking book.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@compgrad1
See I find it hilarious; you are among the idiot crowd saying "OH WELL YOU BETTER WATCH OUT, THIS GUY I KNOW IS SMART AND I KNOW HE WOULD BEAT YOU". That is silly, proves nothing if true, and makes you look like you can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag.
So again; you may if you want post some peer reviewed articles that go for your position. When you don't find them you can write another incohearent response again I guess.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@JamesCizuz Like I said, I'd like to see Craig and Meyers be given a shot at your guys. Leave the peer reviewed articles, let's concentrate on the guys debating.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Debating does not equal truth in any sense of the word. Winning a debate doesn't either. Actual data and evidence does, regardless what those two can string together randomly from what they randomly pull out of their ass to make their side look pretty or better is moot and means nothing without hard evidence. So again, I know you'll show your ignorance again, but post some actual evidence.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@compgrad1 I'll ask again. What's wrong with debating you in peer review? What advantages does live debate have that peer review does not. Peer review puts your ideas under proper scrutiny, with no time limits, and you can follow references and check for accuracy.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 Peer review? Maybe because like you said, we Creationionists don't have the access. Plus why not debate on something exciting new discoveries instead of old boring evolutionist insults coming from the evo camp.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 Ummm, I said you do have access to peer review. You have the same access everyone has. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from submitting to peer review. You just don't want to. New discoveries are always debated, in peer review. That's the whole point of peer review.
I'll ask for the third time, what's wrong with peer review? What does live debate offer in accuracy that peer review does not?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@compgrad1
We are not attacking you, we are attacking the lack of effort on your side. Our side has peer review research where thousands of scientists spend time trying to disprove every paper or research article put out and if they can't find issue or if it's all sound and verified and they all did the tests they sign it. Yet still creationists, which have not one paper pass peer review try to equate there guess with an established theory or model of reality.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@JamesCizuz So, why won't your guys debate Stephen C. Meyer, if we are lacking efforts? He's a pretty good I.D. guy, I am a creationist but we have almost the same views. Maybe we don't have nearly as many peer reviewed papers because we are a minority and we are censored. Go figure...
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 Your people are welcome to debate, in the place that matters: Peer review. Only your kind avoids peer review because you don't want your ideas to be properly scrutinised. The only debate you will ever take is live, public debate.
The reason you don't have peer reviewed papers is because you never submit to peer review. It's not like you submit your research, and it keeps getting rejected on unscientific grounds. You simply never submit in the first place.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 I think thatwe don't get published is because we get held back, I honestly think we are censored.
My kind, heh. We are all one kind, there's no other kind. Or are we supposed to be inferior now? Anyways...
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 How can you get held back when you never even try in the first place? I know what you "honestly think", but that doesn't make it true. There is no evidence that you are censored, there is no evidence that you're not privileged to the same scientific process evolution goes through. All you have to say you're censored is a few baseless assertions that fall apart under scrutiny.
Your kind is creationists. You seem to want to be a collective, so you get referred to as one.
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 To this I say, Watch Ben Stein's documentary.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 Have you looked into any of the cases Expelled presents? Every case of a creationist being censored has been found to be exaggerated, deserved, or completely made up. Sternberg tried to bypass peer review. Gonzalez was lacking credentials. Crocker served the rest of her tenure and it wasn't renewed. Under no case did the actual scientific data have anything to do with it. Do you even care what the other side has to say?
Impaler1815 7 months ago
@Impaler1815 So you are insisting that these Expelled scientists are lies. That's a pretty serious statement to be made. We understand that scientists who subscribe to Creationism are being censored. That's why you don't see our peer reviews. I don't know where you get your facts.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1
There is a bias in science, towards truth. If you never meet your burden of proof you can never be expelled, because you were never fucking enrolled.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@compgrad1
It's annoying, and your side has no delay in calling us down either. We don't result to insults until your side starts it. In a debate there is no chance either side can win. Whatever the debate results are, or whatever people think or how well you did, there is still a side that is right, and a side that is wrong. The creationist side to this moment, in 2000 years has 0 evidence for anything supernatural... ANYWHERE.
JamesCizuz 7 months ago
@JamesCizuz It is pretty annoying. Just do a search for creation science on youtube and see how many jokes are played. I know Creationists can win, it's a no brainer.
compgrad1 7 months ago
@compgrad1 It's not up to us to prove God doesn't exist. If that were the case any unfalsifiable claim would be considered true. It's up to you, the one making the claim that an all powerful being lives in another dimension, to provide evidence. All you have is arguments from ignorance: we don't know certain things about our side, therefore your side must be true, despite literally no positive evidence or known possibility.
Impaler1815 10 months ago
@Impaler1815 Arguments of ignorance? Have you ever read explanations of how humans evolved? They use terms like: we think, possibly, perhaps, there's a chance, it could be... There's never a precise tone. We on the other hand, we affirm the Existence of God. We don't use science to prove God, we prove science and everything else with God.
Atheists should be the ones showing arguments; Skeptics and agnostics are more logical, since they admit they don't know or can't prove either way.
compgrad1 10 months ago
@compgrad1 So you equate not 100% certainty with total ignorance? Interesting. Science doesn't deal in absolute truths.
You may claim to be 100% sure of Gods existence, but when you look at the actual evidence, there is none at all. Simply claiming something, no matter how fervently, doesn't make it true. How does one "prove science with God"?
Impaler1815 10 months ago
@Impaler1815 WOW! You're stubborn Faith shows! creationist websites?, I have been studying this problem for most of my life! over 30 years! Maybe your atheist sites have told you its not a problem. Its the biggest problem facing naturalistic origins.Go study it!
5tonyvvvv 8 months ago