Flaws of Life in a Tube
October 7, 2011 at 10:17 pm #15485
I will simply list the flaws of life in a tube. I encourage debate, although I cannot understand how you can debate the flaws of an experiment which are sealed in time and unchangeable.
1)This experiment was done without the presence of oxygen.
-oxygen is needed to support life. therefore, how can life exist in a tube without oxygen? I would appreciate if you could explain how.
2)This experiment was done with the presence of tar (85%)
-i would like everyone to consider the tar pits. which, when living things stepped into them, they became fossilized in mid-movement. I would like to refer specifically to a elephant that was frozen in an epic still life, where the trunk is pointing in the air, presumably above the surface of the tar, while it is attempting to breathe.
3)This experiment only synthesized amino acids and simple proteins
-of the amount of amino acids synthesized, it was about 50-50 right and left handed amino acids. Life uses almost 100% left handed amino acids.
4)The simple proteins synthesized were not the beginning of DNA
-the proteins used in DNA are a bit more complex that the proteins synthesized. Also, DNA is an interviewing of a mass amount of guanine, thiamine, cytosine, and adenine. So much so that when unraveled, it extends form the earth ’till the moon. However, there was nowhere near the amount of this material produced in this tube.
This is much more than is needed to show that this experiment was flawed and does not reproduce, in any fashion, the origins of the theory of evolution. The massive majority of evolutionists in the scientific community has yet to properly reproduce the processes which are stated in the theory of evolution to have occurred. If you do know of any lab reproductions of evolution, I would like to hear about it so that I may correct myself.
October 8, 2011 at 5:52 am #106706
Are you referring to the Miller-Urey experiments?
October 8, 2011 at 9:37 am #106710
so, you want to compare experiment in a small tube with whole-planet-size "experiment" (No 4)?
Well, again and again, you anti-evolutionarists are fighting againt evolution by focusing on the origin of life, but you do not realize, that these two things are basically independent.
October 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm #106715scottieParticipant
Sorry but you are wrong.
These two are not independent of each other.
The most basic form of life is a single cell prokaryote or archaea.
Nothing below these are considered live.
These are the most basic form of species and it is from these that all other forms of life evolved, according to evolutionary theory. This common ancestry is a fundamental pillar.
Darwin’s original narrative is entitled "Origin of Species.."
The origin of life and the origin of species are one and the same thing.
October 9, 2011 at 12:07 am #106727
aptitude: yes, the Miller-Urey experiments.
Jackbean: For one, No.4 is only a fourth of the argument. How can life develope in a tube of tar, without oxygen? He synthesized simple proteins without oxygen. Life needs oxygen.
Jackbean, a portion of evolution states that the very first forms of life came from the sea as a result of the chemical slosh (chemical revolution). It sais that prokaryotes developed, then eukaryotes, then multicellular eukaryotes (biological revolution). This is found in my Miller science book. Obviously, this is the origin of life. And tagging off of scottie, Darwin’s name for evolution was the "Origin of Species".
October 9, 2011 at 4:23 am #106729canalonParticipant
Is oxygen really necessary for life. Really? And what about all that bacteria that are strictly anaerobic and cannot survive in presence of oxygen?
And survival (or lack thereof) of complex organisms in tar is not related to the survival of prokaryotes in the same environment. Bacteria can survive in tar, use it, degrade it (albeit slowly) and multiply in it. So the fact that a mammoth is not happy in a tar pit is irrelevant about the ability of tar to sustain life.
October 9, 2011 at 7:03 pm #106740
In reference to the presence of tar: tar does not represent the majority of the conditions around the world. The tar pits are rare to California. It is not an accurate representation of life on Earth.
Yes, there are anaerobic bacteria. However, how can organisms who need and produce oxygen come from a bacteria that does not need or produce oxygen? This is impossible. Also, where in nature has the evolution of anaerobic bacteria been observed to havecome out of tar?
In addition, the molecules synthesized were not representatives of the beginning of DNA. DNA is much more complex and is produced in much larger amounts. Also, the amino acids produced were about 50-50 left and right handed amino acids. Life uses almost 100% left. This was not an accurate representation of life.
October 9, 2011 at 8:37 pm #106743
but you must consider that you are not thinking about present-day organisms, but ancient pre-organisms, which had no idea about oxygen in air, but were kind of adapted to the ancient enviroment. However, later one of them started to produce the killing oxygen (it was probably by-product of a metabolism) and thus had to evolve defence against it. Later on, we learned, how to use it to have more efficient metabolism.
October 9, 2011 at 10:08 pm #106750
I would appreciate if you could find evidence, not conjecture, to show that "ancient pre-organisms" did not need oxygen and could be killed by oxygen. Until then, I will say that this is false.
Also, how did organisms that did not use oxygen develop organisms that used oxygen?
Also did these "ancient pre-organisms" develop from the chemical slosh? If not, how did they develop? Where did "ancient pre-organisms" come from?
October 10, 2011 at 2:54 am #106754
Oxygen is not required for the synthesis of proteins or nucleic acids in any way. It is required only for aerobic respiration.
Also, the first organisms on earth were not heterotrophic, they were autotrophic. They were probably chemoautotrophic rather than photoautotrophic and evolved in deep-sea hydrothermal vents, but they did not in any way require O2. In fact, O2 was probably poisonous to the organisms due to its oxidizing power.
The tar pits that you have used in your point #2 have nothing to do with the Miller-Urey experiments.
As for point #4, the amount of DNA in a typical human cell stretches out for 2 meters, not "from the earth till the moon". The first organisms had nowhere near this amount of DNA (or may have lacked DNA altogether). However, it has been conclusively shown that amino acids, poteins, nucleic acids, and other biomolecules can be synthesized in large amounts near deep-sea hydrothermal vents in modified Miller-Urey experiments. In recent analysis of the vials produced by the experiments, far more biochemicals were uncovered than previously thought, including 23 amino acids rather than just 5.
Also acknowledge the fact that the Miller-Urey experiments are only a small part of the extensive amount of research on abiogenesis. This includes experiments done by Wachtershauser, Fox, and Eigen, along with many others, which uncover new evidence and provides new models. These include new models to explain homochirality in biological systems, which you are arguing in point 3.
Your (rather primitive) argument is thus flawed on many accounts.
October 10, 2011 at 8:34 pm #106788
1)The problem with the first organisms evolving at thermal vents, is that they need to produce organisms that can move away from those thermal vents. Why would these organisms need to evolve if the vents arent going away, or if they have no predator? There is nothing to coax the adaptation of being able to move away from vents.
How can organisms well accustomed to vents produce organisms that do not need those vents?
Also, if O2 is poisonous to them, then the organisms evolving from that would also be susceptible to this. Also, how can organisms that dont need oxygen and are killed by oxygen produce organisms that produce oxygen and are not poisoned by oxygen? Also, if this is where oxygen came from, how did the early organisms know or create an element that did not exist on earth?
2)In the Miller-Urey experiments, their tube contained 85% tar. The tar pits contain tar. The tar pits encased life at the instant it stepped into it. Even if a complex organism with complex organelles (cell) could develop from the random, unorchestrated arrangement of chemicals, that life would be encased in tar.
If this is the result, then the sea should be a bunch of tar instead of water. I understand that some microorganisms can break down tar, but at what speed and into what do they develop it?
3)Still, in the Miller-Urey experiment, it produced 50-50 left and right hand amino acids. Again, life uses almost 100% left handed. This is not an accurate representation of life. Obviously, this fact cannot be avoided. You did not talk about it in you previous account. What is your take on it?
4)You are referring to experiments of which I had no knowledge of. If these experiments are such convincing proof, then why havent they been made as famous or more famous than life in a tube? If they are so convincing, can you please cite specific experiments and how they prove evolution instead of referring to them in a general sense? Also, I would appreciate if you could provide me with the names for these experiments and the scientists who conducted them so that I may investigate the facts.
As a side note, I will be posting a new thread about sciences and facts that do not allow evolution to be possible. Its title is "Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution". I would appreciate if you could be on the look out for this and I would appreciate you review of those facts.
October 12, 2011 at 8:12 pm #106849
Normally, I see responses in 24 hours. It seems that when aptitude was asked very serious questions unexplained by evolution, it was quite difficult to validate and defend the results of the Miller-Urey experiments.
Also, he said that "experiments done by Wachtershauser, Fox, and Eigen, along with many others, which uncover new evidence and provides new models".
I asked for further response, for the name of the experiments and the scientists. I think this quote is all I have to go on. I will soon be researching with the limited information I have here, and will be posting flaws in their experiments.
October 13, 2011 at 12:02 am #106857quote Tomn:
No, it just means that everyone has realized that any attempt to reason with a creationist is futile.
October 13, 2011 at 1:35 am #106860
if you science was proven, replicated, and observed, instead of a mass of conjectures that could change to compensate for any problem, I would be on your side. And if the theory of evolution didnt disagree with population statistics, then I would be in agreement with the theory of evolution. However, this is not. so.
The population statistics can be found in the thread "Irrefutable Evidence Against Evolution". Also, there is the earth’s magnetic field there.
Its not even that its anything against you or anyone. Its that evolution cannot account for certain things, and it all just doesnt line up. You’ll see what I mean by Irrefutable Evidence. Seriously consider the evidence, because what is posted there are established, well known facts that evolution does not agree with.
I will copy and paste the two arguments here:
2)The Age of the Sun (Russian Sun Study and Earth’s Magnetic Field)
For the theory of evolution to be possible, the sun had to have existed throughout the duration of the evolutionary time scale. Life as we know it could not have developed or exist without the sun in tow. A study was done on the sun by Russian scientists. Based on the sun’s rate of nuclear fusion, the Russian scientists found the sun to be 10,000-30,000 years old.
Also supporting young age is the strength of the earth’s magnetic field. Scientists have found that the magnetic field is reducing in strength at a rapid rate, with a half life of about 1,400 years. If that rate is reversed, the strength of the earth’s magnetic field 20,000 years ago would be that of a magnetic star. This supports Earth’s young age, as appose to evolution’s over estimation.
This science is above all the most convincing. As you can see in the chart of population growth, the human population stays relatividly stable until there is an excessive amount of exponential growth. According to evolution, humans appeared 200,000 years ago, and the modern human 40,000 years ago. The application of population growth rate has been estimated at 2%, yet it has been shown to be 1%. Every 82 years, one-third of the population is wiped out by disease, war, etc. If these rules are applied, over the course of 41,000 years, according to the observed science of population statistics, there would be 2×10^89 humans in existence today. In other words, 200000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000. The current population is 6900000000. There is not enough room on earth to hold this many bodies.
This is not conjecture. This is a science of population statistics. Evolution does not conform to this.
The other facts can be found in the thread "Irrefutable Evidence Against Evolution". You may argue the lysosome and digestive system, but otherwise, how could you get around the fact? I dont understand how yo guys continue to argue. Honestly, I want to ask: why do you guys keep arguing?
October 13, 2011 at 4:32 am #106862
I don’t have much time today, so I’ll post a very brief response:
(1) You don’t seem to have an argument 1.
(2) Which Russian scientists? Can you post a link to the study? What have they done differently that all the other scientists have not done in order to estimate the age of the universe? Why is the age they have calculated contradictory to all evidence about the age of the planets in the solar system, including the Earth, which have been calculated using more accurate techniques?
(3) How has the population growth rate estimated? How can you conclude that this is applicable throughout history since the beginnings of Homo sapiens? How does this estimation account for events such as the Bubonic plague, and the recent spike in population growth since the Industrial Revolution?
Posting false studies which have little or no significance does not impress me.
By the way, I have been busy for the past two days or so, and I have not responded to your previous post because the answers to your questions can be found easily in a standard biology textbook.
October 13, 2011 at 7:06 am #106865quote Tomn:quote Tomn:
Takeš a deep breath, think about it once again and make for yourself clear, whether you want answers or not.
Nut I agree, why do we keep arguing with someone, who believes the sun is old only 40 000 years and Earth just celebrated 6000th anniversary?
October 21, 2011 at 11:22 pm #107101
Just because we think differently and most likely wont budge does not mean that we cannot debate and consider the facts in totality. This does not mean that we cannot look at each other’s data and explanations and debate to find the truth after truly considering wether evolution is truly possible.
My question was not sarcastic. It was a serious question. I really wanted to know. However, if you do not wish to venture there, you do not have to.
I posted the full piece on Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution. I will say the same thing here as I said there: I saw it 2 years on http://www.biologynews.net/ It was published in a prominent England science journal. I did not take down the link, and am unable to refer to the study. I did not mention this there, but since I am unable to procure the exact source, not that I did not read it 2 years ago and that it isnt true, I should retract that statement. I am not admitting to falsifying data, but since I am not able to procure a source, I should retract that statement.
October 22, 2011 at 9:20 am #107113
Tomn, you should join another thread about23008.html I’m sure you will have lots to say in there.
October 23, 2011 at 1:52 am #107129
yes I enjoyed what he said quite thoroughly. What he sais is true, and you could even visit the thread to see my testimony of being shouted out by evolutionists.
Although, I am Christian and he is Islamic, and in that we differ.
Thats more evidence for you against evolution, and the truth about their tactics.
Also, shouldn’t you seek the truth rather than see everything with an evolutionist film over you eyes? The facts dont agree with evolution. You guys conjecture the impossibilities as possible, but the problem with evolution is that it has to agree with every other science: physics, chemistry, population statistics, etc, but it doesnt.
October 23, 2011 at 12:39 pm #107145
age of sun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Life_cycle
I will tell you a secret, if the population is limited in some resources, it doesn’t grow. Thanks to christians there was the dark age in Europe for few centuries which pretty much limited the scientific and technological progress and caused several famines, Black Death breaks and other diseases which caused significant reduction in human population. On other continents the populations were quite stable because of limited resources.
So, the carbon is not a problem anymore?
October 23, 2011 at 5:38 pm #107160
carbon is still a problem. It is impossible for anything with a atomic number of 2 or more to form randomly. I’m sure I dont have to recount the argument.
Did you give an explanation for how this is possible? If so, I did not see it and must have missed it.
Big bang gives an explanation for how this could have happened, but by that explanation, it is quite impossible: nothing, taking itself and turning into something. It simply isnt possible for nothing to turn into something. Keep in mind that the atomic number is equal to the number of protons in a nucleus of an atom. Science has no viable answer for how 2 or more protons got into the same nucleus.
Carbon, and all elements with atomic number of 2 or more, is still a problem.
October 23, 2011 at 7:45 pm #107166quote TimTruett:
So, it’s hard for you to believe that nothing formed into something, but you believe that nothing formed everything. Quite interesting.
October 23, 2011 at 8:58 pm #107174
since when have I said this?quote JackBean:
I have never said this.
If you are referring to my God, let me correct you: God is not a "nothing". He is an invisible spirit, in which in his likeness is every man made.
I have explained before that there are people who have been healed by the power of Jesus, people that once had a disease and have been miraculously healed in a fashion that non-believing medical doctors cannot explain, especially because they do not know the power of God and they dont want to believe it. You dont want to believe it. Evolution has no explanation for the power of Jesus, the same power that created the universe.
You dont want to believe it? Find a viable way this universe was created. Evolution and big bang are too far stretched and are simply not possible. You know my thread Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution.
October 23, 2011 at 9:29 pm #107175quote Tomn:
So you’re saying that the complicated universe was created by an even more complicated being? May I ask where this being came from?quote Tomn:
What evidence is there that Jesus had these powers? Don’t other holy books have their own prophets believed to have mystical powers as well: Muhammad, Krishna, Apollo, etc.? What explanation is there for their "mystical powers" that have been given to them by their own respective god(s)?quote Tomn:
Too far stretched? What it appears is that either you do not have enough knowledge to understand it, or you force yourself to deny it (most likely both). And yes, I do know that thread. Turns out the entire thread is a misnomer: they are not facts, they are not irrefutable, and they are not against evolution.
October 23, 2011 at 11:43 pm #107181
1)He’s God. He doesnt come from anything. If He came from somewhere, or someone, or some primordial slosh, He wouldnt be God. He was existing before the beginning and He is here today.
He’s God. He is the creator of all things, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. He is not created, but creator. Nothing created God. If he was created, He wouldnt be God.
What I tell you is fact. God is, and he was, and will always be. But you will probably dismiss this because you do not believe.
My favorite testimony of God is the true story of the sailor who smoked. He said to the ship’s Chaplain: "God isnt real. Hey, if God’s real, tell Him to make me stop smoking." Now it was known that this man smoked every day after lunch, and that he was used to the swaying ships enough that he didnt get sea sick anymore. The next day, he went out after lunch to smoke. He took a deep breadth and said "See. God doesnt exist." At that moment, he vomited over the side of the ship. The next day, he went out to smoke after lunch. He took a deep breath of the cigarette. "see. God doesnt exist." And again, he vomited over the side of the ship. Adn the third day, he went out after lunch. He took a puff of the cigarette. "See. God doesnt exist." And he vomited over the side of the ship.
How do we know the story? Because he came back the 4th day to the Chaplain, and believed on Jesus. The true story is written in the book by the very chaplain who was talking to this sailor. The book is called "A Man Called Peter".
Otherwise, besides this man’s personal experience with God and smoking, he would have never believed on Christ. I can promise you this: take any part of the word of God and apply it, believe it. You will see that God is the God of miracles, and that He exists.
2)The above story is evidence that Jesus has these powers.
You know what Jesus did for every man that no other religion offers? Did any savior of any other religion ever die for their believers? None other exists. No other religion promises life after death, or the security of a good life after death. Apollo is one of the many gods of something called Greek MYTHOLOGY. When was the last time you’ve heard that Apollo, or any Greek or Roman god ever healed or done anything good for anyone? Never. In fact, the Greek gods are described throughout mythology as a bunch of squabbling, selfish immortals.
Muhammad? He just offers a bunch of wisdom. Muhammad is dead, and he did not raise from the dead as Jesus did. He did not die for his people, nor offer any sacrifice to his people. Muhammad does not give his life or his mind or love, peace, joy, and mercy that Jesus has. Muhammad cannot answer the question of how this world and the universe came to be.
3)I know plenty about evolution. Its just that I think it is not possible. We both know of the primordial slosh, divergent evolution, life in a tube, speciation, coevolution, genetic drift, mutations as the evolutionary engine, evolutionary time scale, geographical isolation, divergent evolution, punctuated equilibrium, genetic correction over time, common ancestry, and geological timescale. I know plenty on how it works.
I know that there is NOT ONE SINGLE fossil of a common ancestor. I know that the modern human "appeared 40,000 years ago", and that if you grow that population from then by applying the correct observed rules, you do not get todays population but a number with 90 digits. I know that the probability of cell development from primordial slosh is 0.000000009%, or 1 in 104,478,296, which is practically impossible. Evolution can explain at an impossible stretch the formation of an organism, but cannot explain the appearance of the genetic code. I know that no trace of the primordial slosh has ever been found. I know that in the primordial slosh, evolutionists do not account for the fact that there are ocean currents that disrupt collections of elements in order to combine into higher forms, and that evolutionists do not account for the fact that a slosh of many elements could lead to elements interfering with the formation of higher elements. Such as amino acids that try to combine to form DNA or proteins, but are somehow uninterrupted by another random element in the slosh.
October 24, 2011 at 12:20 am #107183quote Tomn:quote Tomn:
Contradiction much?quote Tomn:
I’m not impressed. How do you know this story (along with others in the Bible "demonstrating" Jesus’s powers) is true? Any scientific backing? Any historical evidence?quote Tomn:
Hmm… so your belief in Christianity is based on how spiritual and supposedly how kind your prophet is rather than how much evidence there is to support your beliefs? Sounds like an irrelevant appeal to me.quote Tomn:
1. Look in the fossil record.
2. The human population does not grow exponentially.
3. The probability of cell development from "primordial slosh" is not 0.000000009%, it is close to 1, because it can be demonstrated in the lab.
4. The earth’s atmosphere is no longer reducing, so abiogenesis does not spontaneously occur in the present.
5. Ocean currents near deep sea hydrothermal vents?
6. What "random element"?
October 24, 2011 at 12:27 am #107185
Actually your second point reminded me of this comic:
October 27, 2011 at 10:41 pm #107376
1)I dont think you understand. God didnt come from a primordial slosh. He is the God of this universe, existing before time in the spirit realm. He is not bound by the rules of this world. In fact, He makes the rules of this world.
God didnt come from anything. He wasnt made from anything. He is creator, not created, and not randomly formed from a mesh of chemicals.
If he was created from something, He wouldnt be God.
2)Historical evidence? History is what is in the past, yes? Well that IS history. It actually happened. Those events are recorded in the book "A Man Called Peter". This actually happened. Im not making up a story. Im recounting to you actual events.
What happened to that man was especial proof to him because it happened to him. It is his, what I call, human experience. And human experience is undeniable, especially to the people that experience it personally. But to those around that person, it may be ignored simply because you do not want to believe.
3)There’s a saying I heard from a pastor: Its not designed to make sense, its designed to make faith.
Faith in God that is. It is based on belief. However, the bible is scientific.
Do you know of the red sea crossing? The bible describes where Israel crossed the Red Sea as a place where they could only go forward or back and where the bottom of that sea is sandy in order to allow crossing. There is such a place in the Red Sea called Pi-Hahiroth. There, the bottom is sandy and there is a thin path in the mountains where the Israelites could not go left or right. Also, the bible sais that the Egyptian army went after the Israelites. Therefore, the chariot wheels would be in the bottom of the sea, right? In only one spot in the whole sea, and one spot only, right where the mountain path leads, there are chariot wheels at the bottom of the ocean.
The most convincing evidence is that human femurs have been found at the cite. Before you question me about it: yes, it has been confirmed that they are human femurs.
1)There are the McFall and Tailor trails where dinosaur footprints have been found on the surface. Dinosaurs are supposed to have existed, at their last point in history, 65 million years ago, and are not supposed to be found in the surface. And yet footprints are on the surface. This shows recent existence. Evolution’s geological timescale does not conform to this.
Also, there are no intermediate fossils of any kind, at all. I was in my AP Environmental class, and we watched a video on evolution, which was full of evolutionary scientists and only evolutionary scientists. They admitted to the nonexistence of intermediate fossils.
However, the explanation for this was rapid evolution, which has never been known to occur.
Also, do not make claims. Evidence please. Only evidence, not claims without base. You are an evolutionist and would know the best examples of this. Please show them to me, because I have seen none. However, I have seen the fossils claimed to be intermediate, and there are flaws in these. But nonetheless, please show them that we should debate them here.
2) Look at any chart of a population’s growth and you will see that populations grow exponentially. This is not my assumption or conjecture: populations grow exponentially. This is a fact. Its not my fact, but a fact which has been observed throughout history. Look it up anywhere in google. You will clearly see that populations grow exponentially.
3)In no lab has there been the replication of the development of the cell. Life in a Tube has flaws, especially in the fact that he ran a constant stream of electricity to simulate a sporadic event with a large time period in between each event. No cell has ever been produced from a organized, isolated assembly of the right elements, which make up the cell, in a tube. Experiments do not take into consideration that the primordial slosh had a host of elements, which does not allow elements to be isolated. For example, amino acids are not the only element in the primordial slosh. Life in a tube is not an accurate representation of this.
4) I looked into abeogenesis. I do not understand how a shrinking atmosphere has to do with the formation of the cell from simple chemicals.
5)There are ocean currents near deep sea hydrothermal vents. They are called upwellings. Upwellings are currents from the bottom which bring up nutrients and CO2 to the top level of bodies of water. These are necessary to the survival of species, as CO2 is pumped to the surface for algea (freshwater) or plankton (saltwater) to use, and nutrients are most plentiful at the bottom.
Also, the building blacks for amino acids would be far to diluted in water. Also, there are
6)Doesnt the primordial soup contain more than just the simple building blocks of amino acids? Or has the theory been composed to say that the primordial soup did not contain anything else besides the building blocks of amino acids?
Also, I find it very unlikely to the point of impossibility that amino acids would accidentally combine to form just the 20 proteins necessary for life, especially because of upwellings. Also, there are 10^130 different combinations of amino acids. I find it hard to believe or find it possible that just 21 combinations would happen to form out of the many that are possible.
Also, the minimum number of proteins that are needed for life are 456.
The argument in TalkOrigins is that the number of 256. Their source, the second link, shows that the reason for the reduction is that those genes subtracted are harmful to the organism (parasite specific, functional redundancy). However, this is not proof that it is not necessary to life, but that those genes are harmfulor redundant.
Also, in reference to the comic: a low blow, but I see the comical intent and value none the less. Although, not to be rude or sardonic, I am not laughing.
October 28, 2011 at 12:33 pm #107414zephidelParticipant
Hmmm… why did this thread turned into a debate regarding God?
October 29, 2011 at 1:33 pm #107424wpseofriendlyParticipantquote Tomn:
If you believe in god so much why do you have to try and convince other to believe the exact same way as you do. I think the beauty of humans is the diversity in thinking. We don’t have to believe in the same way, it would be a very grey world if we did.
October 30, 2011 at 5:59 pm #107447quote Tomn:
Nice fact, what about some proof?quote Tomn:
I like the book about third world war. I think it was called Red storm. Since it was written on paper, it must be truth, right?
So, if the God exist, why doesn’t he make us believe in him?quote Tomn:
And if you kill lots of unbelievers, you will be rewarded even more, right?quote Tomn:
What about some evidence for God?quote Tomn:
It’s growing exponentially now, because we have enough food and stuff to live from.
November 4, 2011 at 9:08 pm #107618
I came here to debate facts and Flaws of Life in a Tube, which still stands. I looked back on the comments, and it was actually JackBean who mentioned that
[quote="JackBean"]So, it’s hard for you to believe that nothing formed into something, but you believe that nothing formed everything. Quite interesting.[quote]
And from there, it was a debate. It seemed that JackBean used starting a religious with me as a cop out for admitting that Life in a Tube is not an accurate representation of the supposed "primordial slosh". I argued the evidence, and when properly argued, it did not stand up for evolution. Thus, a cop out.
I honestly dont feel the need to convince others. As I said above, I wasnt even the one who brought it up. JackBean began that conversation. I came here to debate the viability and evidence of the theory of evolution. And as I said, I debated this to the end with JackBean, and at least in my mind proved him wrong, and he switches over to a religious cop out.
But I appreciate the debate. Although, I will never be able to convince this man over the Internet. I have given him several examples, even on different threads, about Gods power and proof of His existence. Honestly, all I can do is pray that the holy ghost will move on his heart, for I could never convince him of my own ability. When a heart is hardened, it takes God to bring it back.
1)I have told several accounts of God. The sailor who smoked. You know the example already. You quoted it. It is a true account only explained by God’s power, which was able to stop this man from smoking.
Another is the man who went to hell.
Another man published it in a book called "A Place Called Heaven"
2)If you want something on paper, read the Bible. Its filled with how God works. And if you honestly want to see if God is real, pray "God, make yourself real to me."
3)You are taking that WAY out of context and adding to that. I think both of us know that you are doing this. Let me make this clear: whatever stuff you’re talking about when you say "kill lots of unbelievers", I dont believe in that. I am a Christian, not an Islamist. No where in the Bible does it say to kill unbelievers.
4)It disproves the theory, so you’re making excuses. Population have and always will grow exponentially.
5)What you believe drives your search. As one that has had direct experience with both creationism and evolution, I have found that creationism makes much more sense. Life comes from a alive creator rather than a dead chemical. Evolution actually contradicts itself in this when it sais "Life comes from life."
But we are all in out own ways biased, and will not look at things objectively. Actually, I have known evolutionists to ignore evidence and attempt to shut down the debate.
November 5, 2011 at 1:39 am #107623quote Tomn:
Please supply some evidence of this assertion.
November 6, 2011 at 12:31 am #107657
1)Do you remember when you attempted to shut down the debate in Irrefutable Facts Against Evolution? about22923.html You should read the facts. Get back to me when you read them.
Also, this thread is proof against theory of evolution. There are facts here. Go to page one, read, then debate or move on.
2)Further evidence against the theory of evolution is the fact that it has not been replicated in the laboratory, observed in nature, or shown in the fossil record.
3)There is evidence claimed to support evolution, and I do not claim to know all of that evidence, but the "evidence" which has come across my path has been insufficient.
4)I’m surprise you survived that head vs rock bashing.
My offer still stands.
You know of "evidence" for evolution that I dont.
Present it for debate or debate the facts I have here.
November 6, 2011 at 12:55 am #107662
November 6, 2011 at 3:45 am #107686
You want to prove your theory or what?
Apparently not. You want to laugh at creationists? Dont choke on that fly while you do. It hasnt fully evolved yet and it hasnt learned not to fly into open mouths.
I would appreciate if debate could return to this thread. Does ANYONE want to debate facts here?
November 6, 2011 at 3:52 am #107691
As I and others have said, debate with ignorant people is futile and not worth our time.
November 6, 2011 at 4:06 am #107705
Go eat pie.
Why are you even here then? If its pointless to debate, you should just get out.
You dont belong in a forum designed for debate.
November 6, 2011 at 4:07 am #107706quote Tomn:
My functions are to help people who seek answers to questions about evolution and to be an antibiotic against infections.
April 13, 2012 at 8:44 pm #110618NiklasParticipant
When Miller died, scientists reexamined the preserved original vials from the experiment, and they found more than 20 different amino acids.
what is your view on these articles I found recently?
The original box containing archived spark discharge samples prepared by Stanley Miller in 1958. For unknown reasons, Miller never analyzed these even though this is his first experiment using hydrogen sulfide.
In the new research, the team analyzed samples from another variant of the experiment performed in 1958 in which Miller used carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide gas in the mixture. It was "lost" for decades because, for unknown reasons, Miller never reported his analysis of the results.
Stanley mentioned to several of us that he hated working with hydrogen sulfide because it smelled so bad and tended to make him sick," says Bada. "Given that some of the compounds he made in the experiment smell pretty bad, this experiment may be the basis for his reluctance to deal with H2S in experiments."
April 14, 2012 at 1:25 am #110620JorgeLoboParticipant
Could you offer references for the findings you mentione?
April 14, 2012 at 6:14 pm #110623
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.