Amino Acids: Attacking Atheism (again)

Xela777 Says:

So, you guys had your experiment, ( where “you” used methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water to mimic the early earth’s atmosphere, and viola you guys made amino acids! No one disputes that. Although, I am curios as to how these amino acids eventually linked up to make a functional cell, or how they linked at all. These amino acids needed to be in a very specific order, and although T’s will link to C’s, is it? I don’t see how the groups of T-C and A-U (in the case of RNA, which is thought to be before DNA) will join together to make any intelligible (as in, will work) organism.
I will also point out that after the 1950’s, the prehistoric meteorologists rethought their hypothesis of early atmosphere, and changed it to nitrogen, I think oxygen, iron too? The point is, they changed it because the supposed hydrogen would’ve escaped off, and the experiment never showed the amino results in the “new” atmosphere.
But how did aminos link?


36 Responses to Amino Acids: Attacking Atheism (again)

  1. Damian says:

    I don’t have a very good understanding of amino acids or RNA but I found this video which may be helpful.

    Another couple of points:

    I’m not sure why you are using the phrase “you guys”. Is this because you see investigation into the origins of life on earth as an atheistic endeavour? If so, I can assure you such investigation has nothing to do with religion and there are plenty of Christians who are scientists and who are currently involved in many similar experiments.

    Also, I mentioned this previously on another topic but it bears repeating here for any new readers:

    It’s a common creationist tactic to find a gap (among the many) in our knowledge and think that this counts as proof against the fact of evolution and the theory of the mechanism of natural selection, but this is disingenuous.

    If you can imagine a court trial where 1000 strong pieces of evidence point to the accused being the murderer then this creationist tactic is the equivalent of the defence objecting to the charge because the prosecution isn’t able to confidently state what colour underwear the accused was wearing on the night of the crime.

    It is quite likely that there will be areas of scientific endeavour where we will never be confident of the exact series of events or properties. In the end science is a way for everyone to be able to discover truth about the world and it comes down to a weighing of evidence for or against a hypothesis or theory. Finding a gap does not constitute evidence and the best you can do if you disagree with something like the theory of evolution by natural selection is to provide evidence contrary to it.

    The bizarre thing is that if sufficient evidence was presented that showed that any scientific theory was incorrect I would embrace it and move on. So would anyone who practices the scientific method. Understandably, this might take some time because it’s a very human thing to try to cling to a concept as if it were a cause but science does a great job of giving priority to evidence over gut feelings, revelation or strong belief.

    “In science it often happens that scientists say, ‘You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,’ and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.” – Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address

    “Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the sport of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm of reason, and the mind becomes a wreck.” – Thomas Jefferson 1822

  2. xela777 says:

    And yet Jefferson was a theist…
    And I say “you guys” because that’s how I talk. Is there some other term you’d like me to use to identify the atheist group? Don’t get all hyped up on how I seem to love ignorance. Why am I on this forum?

    First off, if you payed ATTEntion to my first post, you would see that the 1961 experiment is considered faulty, hydrogen is longer thought to have been in “primordial earth”, it was to light and would’ve gone into space. The 1961 experiment is not good, it is outdated. A new one was tried, but failed. (too much iron) Of course, this info was supplied by my church, ( I wish they were more thorough) so it might be biased. If someone can give me the updated experiment, that would be great.

    Oh, that’s lovely, will all the atheists please watch the video so you can show me the ways of wise?
    He tells me I don’t know what I’m talking about with the law of thermodynamics, and brushes it off and keeps going. That doesn’t help a bit. Educate me. Show my fallacy.

    He tells me that complex things can naturally get more complex, flashes H’s and C’s in my face, and goes on.

    He gives the “just you wait” comment on how you guys will fill the gaps, and we say that too, but that’s apparently wrong and unfair according to other posts.

    I don’t doubt that amino acids could’ve formed, I just doubt how you can get them in a workable formation. And since you brought it up, let’s talk about thermodynamics.

    Atheist List of Things to Do
    1. Explain how amino acids linked up into workable livable life support codes.
    2. Explain how Christians can’t understand thermodynamics.
    3. Explain how a strand of RNA surrounded by lipids could produce another RNA strand. You think lipids just randomly form? The fat in your soup is from the animal, it didn’t just appear there!
    4. Give me a link to a successful “we made amino acids that somehow are workable life coded” experiment that does NOT have hydrogen.
    5. Add 1+1.
    6. Write “Jefferson was a theist” 5 times. (Copy paste is fine, I don’t care.)
    7. Understand that this is a post on how do amino acids link intelligibly, not “oooh, I found a chink, your theory sucks”.

    Let’s go over how Creationist are “court-room idiots” here. I think it’s funny how you have to use something as stupid as underwear color to make Creationists look trivial.
    If we had video tapes of a tall bald guy wearing all black with white underwear showing killing someone, and leaving the room, get in a car (switching to outside cam), and drive off, AND THEN two minutes later cops catch a tall bald guy in the same model car with BLUE underwear, well, yes, it’s obviously a different guy.
    Unless we see the underwear can change color. No, he can’t change underwear while he’s driving.

    Understandably, this might take some time because it’s a very human thing to try to cling to a concept as if it were a cause but science does a great job of giving priority to evidence over gut feelings, revelation or strong belief

    (First off, if you’re so much more humane/human than I am, shouldn’t you be the clinging one?)
    Right. Science that tells you complex things break down, only life (plants, I’ll offer the word God) can make that back to complex. This IS indeed more strong than you’re revelation and strong belief that God’s a sadist/jerk-(
    -and gut feeling that you know what’s better for you than God.
    I had an epiphany about in 10th grade (wow, like, as of this writing) and realized that neither side will EVER have SOMEthing that says, “aha! we are absolutely and totally right, no doubt!”, except maybe the case of God coming back for us. Is there one find you guys need to make that will totally prove evolution, with total certainty, and make it so you guys don’t need to say “wait!” anymore?

    May God Bless Your Day! :D

  3. Damian says:

    I’m afraid you’ve quite lost me with that most recent post.

    I want to ask you a question and I want you to understand that I’m not in any way intending to offend you. You seem an intelligent person but sometimes I see a hint of disjointedness and I’m wondering if have an illness that requires medication?

    I don’t ask that to denigrate you. Only to find a better way to communicate if this is the case.

    If I’ve misread the situation here please accept my humble apologies.

  4. xela777 says:

    Great, now we discuss my mental health. You said it better than The Atheist in the other forum.
    What’s the disjointedness?

    And where’d I lose you?

  5. Damian says:

    Great, now we discuss my mental health

    Well, yes. But not to denigrate you. Just so we can find a suitable way to break discussions down appropriately so that we’re not talking past each other.

    I get the impression that you haven’t really taken in much of my previous fairly lengthy post and your reply was disjointed.

    Would it work better if we take things in smaller, single-topic chunks? (The discussion seemed to flow better previously this way)

  6. Xela777 says:

    Right, here, I’ll sum up what you said:

    “Here’s a vid. (this was all that was used to address my question btw, which is I think the point of this post, not too share Creationist tactics)

    Why “you guys”? Christians are scientists too you know!

    Christians use illogical tactics to prove logic wrong.

    If I was given logic I’d move on.


    I responded to your quotes, responded quite lengthily to your video, I jabbed back at the courtroom analogy, and responded too human nature paragraph.

    Why does it seem disjointed?
    (I won’t be here on the weekend.)

  7. Durzal says:

    Science doesnt have all the answers yet, however its concept of the universe is based on sound scientific theory and fact.
    Why is it you demand factual answers from science in areas its still working on but you dont demand the same of your religion, what factual evidence has your religion given you to prove god?

    • Xela777 says:

      My religion to prove God? None. Most of the testable stuff in the Bible has been proven however, so why not the rest?

      Theories are not proof, they’re fairly well supported ideas.

      The big bang is just as likely as God, it’s just that the big bang also need amino acids ALL to line up in the right order too.

      Wait, how do atheists explain genes know to stop “reading” the strip of DNA with certain end sequences?

  8. Durzal says:

    The Big Bang describes the forming of our universe many facts of this larger theory ie the fact that the universe is expanding is proven.
    How Evolution started ie the first amino acids is still being worked on using very well supported theories, the fact that evolution happens is however proven.
    My point is that you write posts demanding answers to this and that, which science is still working on but has provided massive amounts of evidence whereas your own religion has provided you with precisely(as you have agreed) f* all in regards to evidence of your God.
    Why then do you believe in your God and dont believe in our science, why is your no evidence better than our some evidence?

    Or do you believe that scientists get together and say “well this evolution stuff makes no sense but lets stick with it just to piss off the christians”….there is no conspiracy my friend.
    The reason the vast vast majority of scientists stick to it is because its so very well supported with factual evidence.

    To say that because you managed to prove something in the bible, so why not the rest is ridiculous, by that reasoning i could say “we have proved evolution happens so why not the rest?” To be taken seriously(like science) you’ll have to do a hell of alot better than that, perhaps i should make a list (like you did) and see how well religion can prove its dogma with proof.

    Btw im interested to know your actual belief’s ie do you believe in a 6000-10000 year old earth , noah’s ark, against homosexuality, adam and eve, do you take genesis as a literal interpretation of how it happened?. I just ask so that im not arguing points that you agree with me on and feel free to ask any specific’s on my own views.

    • Xela777 says:

      If evolution was proven, it wouldn’t still be called a theory. My other question addresses evolution’s (I think) biggest problem, how reproductive organs change.
      Vast vast vast majority? Whenever we have little “moral raids” on atheists on youtube, they always whine and complain that they are so few, leave them alone. Then when it gets to science they boast of their huge numbers.

      I believe Earth can be any age, the chronology in Genesis is not the only thing we should’ve looked at. Adam could’ve gone 1,000,000,000,000 years without sinning. (and therefore not aged for his 900 something.)
      Noah’s ark, yes, I think after this I’ll go calculate its space MYSELF, I’m so sick of creationist telling me it’s big enough and atheists telling me it’s too small.
      I’m against homosexuality, I’m one of the few who can actually pull out verses for it.
      Adam and Eve, yes.
      Genesis is literal, yes, written in a non-poetical grammar.

  9. Durzal says:

    My friend you are ill informed…I said that the fact that evolution happens is proven…and it is.

    The theory is how it happens..
    The fact that it does happen…proven
    I look forward to you conceding on this point

    When i said vast vast majority i said scientists.. the fact that atheists are a minority has nothing to do with anything(try reading it again)

    You didnt reply to what i said in my post about why you believe in your God when there isnt a shred of evidence to prove it, yet you deny scientific theories based on incomplete evidence.
    Why is your no evidence better than our some evidence?

    You also didnt respond to to my pointing out of your flawed reasoning where you claimed you had proved something in the why not the rest, and i pointed out that by this reasoning i could say “well we have proved evolution(check above) so why not the rest” and that you would have to do a hell of alot better to be taken seriously(like science)

    Btw thanks for listing your beliefs it will helpful for further debate

    • LordXela777 says:

      The fact of evolution has been observed, like finch beaks, but the theory explains how it happens over a long time. According to this page. Can you tell me about the amino acids now?

      You did not (I think) understand my atheist number conflict, nevermind.

      As far as I have seen, the Bible has no error, so it’s message seems to be well supported. Don’t give me “it has tons of errors”, give me three.

      This “science” I find distasteful, I have three problems with it, 2 of which are meant to be answered, not serving as places for me to explain my world view too all of you. Make another page for that. Can someone answer my question?!?!

      • durzal says:

        Well i guess you couldnt say “yes Durzal you where right, Evolution does happen”
        … but at least you managed to concede the point,
        I respect that..(Not Patronising)

        (btw the page was from wikipedia and encyclopedia’s dont give there opinions on topics, only facts, so its not to be doubted)

        I spoke about ammino acids on my 2nd post on this thread, i basically said that how the first amino acids formed and how they formed into cells is a very well supported theory and is still being worked on,(as you know)

        You have already agreed with me that there is no evidence of a god whatsoever
        “My religion to prove god? None”

        So why are you now offering up the bible as some sort of evidence?
        What about the bible do you think can be offered as evidence?
        the fact that it exists?,
        the fact that it claims there is a god?…. how is this evidence ?

        The Quran exists and claims there is a god also:~ not evidence

        If i write a book about a leprechaun and write in it that he created the universe would this book also constitute as evidence in your eyes..
        after all, it also exists and claims there is a leprechaun creator.

        You didnt respond to my pointing out of your flawed reasoning, and i dont think you will.(no big deal, i wouldnt want to respond to it either)

        Your Question has been answered by me more than once now, here it is again, its still being worked on (as you know) ..but you can bet once science has it answered it will be based on a great deal more evidence than what you currently believe in.

        • Ahmed says:

          You were talking about science and scientist, like you have read every scientist report about our origin, you lacking serious understanding of life as whole and you branching into one direction of science that has not fully developed enough and you are trying so hard to justify your view, and trying to convince everyone of what so called scientific facts (fact my a..), as you know modern science has not proved that God does not exist and has not answered much of the origin of life and the cell structure in many ways. I’m going to ask you a very simple question to see how morally your life is.
          Why we should live (humans & animals)?
          Your answer will depend on your understanding of life and death, I have more for you to help you get your facts right about science and life, in the mean time try and read the holy Quran the last testament correctly to help you with your existence rather than seeking easy exit.

      • LordXela777 says:

        Good God man, (isn’t He?) what WERE your reading comprehension grades? NO, your article says the fact are the things we have seen, eg FINCH, BEAKS! The theory suggests that OTHER CHANGES we have NOT seen COULD have made NEW species. The author is separating the misconception between THE FACT evolution and the THEORY.

        No, YOU are as far as you’ve shown, wrong.

        The Bible is good evidence, due to its nature. You try writing a few books, and establish a religion. Let some of your friends write stuff too, and some people in 200 years. Hope the book survive for 1000 years, make some predictions, and we’ll take a look and see if IT has no contradictions. The Bible has these same stats, but longer time span. It has NO errors, and human work is riddled with errors. I suggest this is divine work, therefore there must be a God.

        I’m not going to accept a THEORY that puts me on hold while it looks at amino acids, nor can explain how reproductive glands changed.

        The sun loses tons of gas constantly, and reduces in size. If the galaxy was so old, the sun would’ve been so huge a billion of years ago that it would’ve consumed the Earth. I am actually ok with even atrillion year old universe, the Bible allows room, but the sun doesn’t seem to like the idea of an one billion year old universe.

      • durzal says:

        This is a qoute from the encyclopedia i linked
        “The “fact of evolution” refers to the changes in populations of biological organisms over time, which are known to have occurred through scientific observations and experiments.”

        you dont appear to be reading my posts very well cause i have already pointed out about, the theory being HOW it happens..
        but the FACT of evolution is that changes in populations of organisms are KNOWN TO OCCUR through experimentation and observation,

        Evolution happens.. you need to start conceeding points when you are proven wrong or you will end up making yourself look crazy.

        “The bible is good evidence due to its nature”
        As you have said “human work is riddled with errors” …moses wrote the first 5 books of the bible and he was a man, the bible is a human work. Its been copied and altered by lots of different men, translated into other languages and all for the last 2000 years, A huge game of chinese wispers
        ….dont try and present it as credible evidence because it isnt.

        (And why then did you say there was no evidence for god before…what changed your mind?)

        Im not gonna accept any religion that has no credible evidence whatsoever to prove its gods existence, whos holy book is so filled with atrocities and claims ppl will burn in hell for all eternity because they simple believe differently.

        The earth could have fallen into orbit of our sun at a later date, im not sure when its supposed to have happened, but earth and all the planet must have fallen into orbit at some point after the sun was formed. Besides i think you have your timings wrong check the link
        theres a diagram showing the lifecycle

  10. LordXela777 says:

    I think either in this post or some other one you asked me why my God was correct and none others were. The three monotheists worship I think the same one, the Muslim just do it wrong and leave Jesus out, and the Jews aren’t using the update. Also, why is your encyclopedia correct and not any other? Wikipedia is viewed every day, surely someone would have corrected the theory versus the fact at some point.

    Yes, the fact of evolution has been proven. That’s why it’s a fact. FINCHES, WILL CHANGE BEAK TYPE IF they change islands. But we have not seen it turn into a Gawopenheimer. The theory (and it’s still a theory) offers an explanation for how the raptor became a finch. They say, “well, maybe the scale type changed slowly over time, until it became feathery, then their snout lost teeth, and became hard, like a beak. Their arms became different arms, until they became like wings (nevermind that at the halfway point your 1/2 arms can’t be used as arms and your 1/2 wings can’t be used as wings) and then we got the Finch.

    NO. It is still a theory. Explain the wings if you can too. And the beak.

    Oh no, I’ll look crazy! I must believe all he says!

    I explained how I thought the Bible was good evidence in the other post, deal with it there, and bring up any more concers about it.

    Did I say that? (no evidence for God) Give me the post date and time.

    It’s not really cause they believe differently, it’s because you don’t want to be with Jesus.

    That’s a good explo for the sun, hang on… (oooo, see, I concede. Too how that argument doesn’t prove you wrong.)
    Says the Earth came around 4.54 billion years ago, and the sun 4.57.
    0.03 billion years isn’t a long time to lose mass for the sun. If Earth had entered later, I think it would have to be quick, life “came around” 3.54 billion years ago, for which it needs the sun. The “rolls/chances” for like needed to start happening fairly early, I doubt you guys rolled the right number as soon as Earth came on the scene.

    Thank you for explaining something that is moderately plausible, and as far as I know of YOUR own imagination.

    • Durzal says:

      “the muslims just do it wrong and leaves out jesus, and the jew arent using the update”

      Im sure they think that your doing it wrong too and as you try to offer you religious book up as proof that your right, the muslims will offer up theres as proof also (the fact is none of you(my opinion) has any credible evidence for what you believe…thats why its called faith)

      “My encyclopedia right and others wrong” im not suggesting this at all, simply wikipedia is one of the biggest online ones and has gone into greater detail about the misconception of evolution as a fact and theory.

      Again with you picking problem in evolution you dont understand
      Just because you dont understand how things happen doesnt make them untrue…and it doesnt matter how many links i give you explaining what you dont understand you’ll just pick something else..

      May 31, 2009 at 12:25am
      “My religion to prove god? None.”

      My friend it isnt about not wanting to be with jesus, just we dont believe in a god, and if we did believe in a creator why would we worship your particular god as we see all religions as pretty much the same.

  11. Xela777 says:

    The Koran says I believe nothing about Jesus NOT being the Son of God (their book says nothing of it, and we have noticed some clashing with their copies. Words have been mixed. A popular one is “virgin” switched with “raisins”)

    The Torah, taken to it’s original 5, say nothing about Jesus, just patches of foreshadowing. The rest of the O.T. PREDICTS Jesus, we would then argue whether or not Jesus is the one predicted. I would argue He is, as He fills in all the prediction criteria, something other “prophets” haven’t. They say He is still to come, which He is. They just think it’ll be His first visit.
    Are you so sure about your prediction now? How much do you know of these three mono-theisms? Answer the latter question please, along with their method of salvation.

    Ok, so I assumed something wrong. I think in general wikipedia is a good encyclopedia for this discussion, though if either of us disagrees and can find a source that says something else, we’ll deem the topic neutral.
    Right, if this one if checked off my list I’ll just choose something else. I’d love to choose something else, my three questions haven’t been even sufficiently answered YET!!!
    This article says nothing about teeth. I have heard about the bone structure crap, but this elaborated more on the feathers. I need a good explo for the half wing half arm survival too for this to be fully explained. By the way, did you read your article?
    “He and his team studied the evidence and the way in which reptile skin decomposes and looked at fossils of other animals which have “dino-fuzz” (Feduccia et al, 2005). They concluded that there is no good evidence that fossilized structures found in China are rudimentary feathers. Instead, the fossilised patterns appear to be “bits of decomposed skin and supporting tissues that just happen to resemble feathers to a modest degree”

    Who are you to say what it’s a matter of? You aren’t even in this religion. It would be like me assuring someone that it’s a Chinese custom to knock on the side of a door if entering an open house. I’m Russian, so I shouldn’t say that, I don’t know if it’s true. I’ve never been exposed to hardcore Chinese ways. Unless you’re using verses from the 66 book Bible, you shouldn’t be telling ME how MY religion goes.
    The Bible never says “believe in God” and you get to heaven. It does say “believe ON the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved”, those are not the same thing. You can believe Jesus and/or God existed, it won’t do any good. You have to believe who He was and what He did. In short, why would you want to be with Him at all if He hadn’t done those things?

    I explained why mine is right. I have nothing else to offer, at least not yet. And I’m not looking for any more material, so that’s probably the only answer you’ll get from me.

  12. Durzal says:

    Where you point out the mistranslation between raisins and virgin in the koran they will undoubtably argue that your wrong just as you do when others point out(aledged) mistranslations in the bible.
    My point is that my “prediction” (as you call it) that none of you can prove what you believe isnt proven wrong by you pointing out inconsistances in the koran because they and atheist’s do exactly the same to the bible.

    I dont pretend to know much about any of the main religions dogma… why would i need to, i dont have to become an expert in voodoo to see it provides no credible evidence for what it believes.

    Regarding what you need evidence for.. I have already given you some links which explained stuff you didnt understand so i imagine you can now see that because you dont understand somthing, it doesnt mean its not the case.
    If you “need a good explo for the half wing half arm” then i suggest you go do some research as im not here to walk you hand in hand through every process in evolution.

    >.< when i said "its not a matter of" i was refering to atheists not christians so that paragraph of ranting was unnecessary.
    Atheist dont, not want to be with jesus.. but as we dont believe in a god why would we care?

    You explained why you think your right ..just like all religions do.

  13. LordXela777 says:

    K, what mistranslation in the Bible? I have heard of no “mistranslation”, and you realize I mean copying, right? The most original copy of the Koran has the ARABIC word for virgin, and we find one later I think in Russia that has the ARABIC word for raisin.

    As far as I know, we have not found a older copy of the Bible saying “dragon” and an newer one saying “cat”.

    I’ve already requested an inconsistency on the Bible, give me three at a time.

    I have researched. All I’ve found are freaking fossil comparision crap. You know how we all have that super website? The website that does its job better than other websites of its kind, and how only a select few know about it? I’m hoping I’ll get the super evolution website, not fossil comparisions. I’m guessing that the “inconsistencies” you’re about to give me were things you could’ve found out too, but I’ll hold your hand through. Unless you’d care to back off on that claim, I’m here to defend it.

    You ASKED why I thought I was right, so I answered. I need to find some Muslims and see if they can tell me why they’re right.

    But no, seriously, Pascal’s Wager?

    • Ahmed says:

      I believe in one God and will always will based on fact not the atheist fiction, just to correct you on the word “VIRGIN” in the holy Quran. The Quran still the same since has been revealed to the prophet Mohammed over 1434 years not a single word of it has changed, if the russian translation or any other translation contains wrong word, that’s the translation’s fault not the Holy Quran, the Quran been revealed in arabic language and translated to nearly every language on this world.
      The Holy Quran does not have an updated version or modification is the same Quran recited by billions of people all over the world.

      • The Atheist says:

        Ahmed have you ever heard of the DAM 0 1-27.1 scroll fragments which contains 38 Qur’an leaves of the Qur’an that was discovered back in 1972 in Yemen? You can see some photos of the ancient text here along with a discussion of the differences between this ancient version and the modern Qur’an.

  14. Durzal says:

    You have missed the point of what i was trying to say, that being, that every religion thinks it religion/book is right all the others are wrong and they all think they have evidence why the other is wrong, be it bad copys or contradictory scripture.
    No one religion does a better job justifying itself than another.
    I could list supposed bible contradictions (but thats another thread) and you’ll just read them and interpret them in a way (any way) that coinsides with your dogma.. theres no point

    Regarding not being able to find the super evolution website..
    Well thats because it doesnt exist, to understand you’ll have to put in the time researching evolution and not just picking something you dont understand and saying “you dont believe in it til someone explains it to you”

    I dont tend to(and havent sofar) argue over what can be interpreted differently by differnet people like supposed copy mistakes, contradictory scripture or other inconsistancies so you wont need to hold my hand through it.

    Pascal wagner? im guessing your refering to this
    Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should wager as though God exists, because so living has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

    So i should pretend to believe that which has no evidence and makes no sense to me… just in case?

    Is this why your a christian…becuase you fear the possibility of hell?
    Perhaps you should convert to islam in case you go to jahannum (islamic hell)

    I think you’ll agree its stupid reasoning.
    (Typically French)

    • LordXela777 says:

      At least two religions agree on the authenticity of the Pentatukh, the Jews and Christians. Is that any case for them? The Islamic community has been caught in miscopied stuff, and the Christian’s haven’t. Where’s the Red Sea post?

      Right, you should cover your bases.

      No, I don’t fear a possibility of Hell. Jesus’s just a nice guy.

      Right, I’ll think it’s stupid reasoning, even though I suggested the reasoning to you.

  15. Durzal says:

    No its not a case for them…why would it be, its not evidence that more than one person believes something.
    There was a time when 99% of the world thought the world was flat ..did that provide a case that it was flat? Of course not you gotta base a case on evidence.

    You keep going on about islam being caught in regards to having miscopied stuff and that yours is all perfect ..i dont care…its just your opinion.. and in no way provides evidence for God or that your religion is any better than any other.

    “Right, you should cover your bases”
    So i should belive that which makes no sense to me, has no evidence whatsoever and cant be explained with any credible resoning just because i fear its punishments for not believing.
    (this i guess would explain your belief in a god)

    If you dont think this reasoning is stupid please feel free to explain why.

  16. Xela777 says:

    GRRR, I HATE THIS! Some people use the idea that most of the world ACTUALLY did NOT think the Earth was flat then, just no one cared, they made that up to somehow make Christianity better (I forgot the argument, it was so stupid), and now people are using how we DIDN’T know as a case against me.

    Anyway, right, my case is the Bible.

    The whole reason I WAS on Islam was because you were saying it commanded as much as irrefutable authority as the Bible. The point of Islam having improper copying kills that. The Koran being worse doesn’t instantly make me right.

    Right, YOU should just to be safe. No, I really don’t know, I don’t see your point of view.
    Right, sure Durzal, that is ALL my religion right there. What were your reading comprehension scores again?

    I’m not a good judge on this reasoning, I’m not in your circumstance.

  17. Durzal says:

    Well as you have said perhaps the koran does have some copy issues but muslims would defend the koran as much as you defend supposed mistranslations and contradictory texts, the point is no theists can prove that their holy book is better than anyone elses, as these books are up for individual interpretation.

    Well if this isnt why you believe in a God why do you suggest it as a reason i should believe in your God.

    And according to your religion it doesnt matter what my circumstances are, i rather believe or go to hell…hardly just.

  18. Xela777 says:

    But I can fix the contradictory texts. The Muslims supposably haven’t. I personally don’t know of any, just what other people tell me. The Muslim book isn’t important to me, as it doesn’t care about Jesus.

    I suggested it cause there wasn’t much else that would convince you ; )
    It’s a crappy tactic, “believe or die!”.

    Hardly just? I’m assuming that it’s logical that if you believe you accept you were wrong for doing those things, and if you don’t you don’t really think you were wrong. Mindset thing.

    • Durzal says:

      Theres not much more to say on the bible and korans credibility as its up to individual opinion.

      If your trying to convince me ..try some (credible) evidence, its the only thing that works on us souless atheist heathens.

      Yes your right(mindset) but even if i did believe in a supreme being (God) i wouldn’t suscribe to a religion as even if i believed a God created the universe i wouldnt ignore evolution and the big bang etc or believe he created us all individually or wanted us praying to him or doing things in his name.
      I see the human race as a moss on a log in a vast.. vast forest.

  19. Ebzent says:

    Here’s a nice long list of contradictions in the bible:

    what answers I can find through quick searches on google to your “Atheist List of Things to Do”

    1. Explain how amino acids linked up into workable livable life support codes.

    2. Explain how Christians can’t understand thermodynamics.
    The short answer? They have been lied to and do not want/cannot do research for themselves.

    3. Explain how a strand of RNA surrounded by lipids could produce another RNA strand. You think lipids just randomly form? The fat in your soup is from the animal, it didn’t just appear there!

    4. Give me a link to a successful “we made amino acids that somehow are workable life coded” experiment that does NOT have hydrogen.
    If you want to go looking for yourself, feel free. I’m thinking that even if I do all your research for you, you probably still won’t learn anything. I don’t even know if such an experiment exists, narrowed to your specific standards. Don’t really care, either. I have accepted that we may never know how abiogenesis happened exactly, without the use of a time machine. I can still accept that it happened, though.

    5. Add 1+1.
    Since you’re being a smart***, my answer will be 10. That’s the correct answer, in binary.

    6. Write “Jefferson was a theist” 5 times. (Copy paste is fine, I don’t care.)
    Jefferson was a theist. WTF does this have to do with anything?
    Jefferson was a theist. WTF does this have to do with anything?
    Jefferson was a theist. WTF does this have to do with anything?
    Jefferson was a theist. WTF does this have to do with anything?
    Jefferson was a theist. WTF does this have to do with anything?

    7. Understand that this is a post on how do amino acids link intelligibly, not “oooh, I found a chink, your theory sucks”.
    “Even though recent, exciting research has provided plausible scenarios for the origin of life and has answered many questions, it is clear that a lot of research remains to be done, since much of the origin-of-life scenarios is still hypothesis. Experimental models are needed that are both realistic and of some appreciable complexity. Were it possible, for example, to show that a primitive RNA organism could be built in the laboratory, as the Szostak lab plans to do, it would be a significant step forward. For this, see Carl Zimmer’s article; there also the hope is expressed that evolution of such an organism might be observable on the lab bench. I would agree that ethical issues are practically non-existent since the organism would not be able to live in the present-day outside world.”

    from you – “I’m hoping I’ll get the super evolution website”
    Try – even if the fundies say it’s totally wrong. Because, you know, they might have an ulterior motive for saying it’s wrong.

    This next part I’m gonna have to take sentence by sentence.
    “Yes, the fact of evolution has been proven. That’s why it’s a fact.”
    Evolution is a Scientific Theory. Understand what a Scientific Theory is, and you’ll also understand why I disagree with the semantics of the above.
    “FINCHES, WILL CHANGE BEAK TYPE IF they change islands.”
    Close, but no cigar. They didn’t reach into the toolbox and change beaks. Evolutionary pressures (limited food resources) caused the beaks to change and become more specialized.
    “But we have not seen it turn into a Gawopenheimer.”
    WTF is a Gawopenheimer?
    “The theory (and it’s still a theory) offers an explanation for how the raptor became a finch.”
    Yes, it’s still quite proudly a theory. Some other theories include the Theory of Gravity and Germ Theory
    “They say, “well, maybe the scale type changed slowly over time, until it became feathery, then their snout lost teeth, and became hard, like a beak.”
    Probably oversimplified, but I can accept this. I just don’t feel like looking it up right now.
    “Their arms became different arms, until they became like wings (nevermind that at the halfway point your 1/2 arms can’t be used as arms and your 1/2 wings can’t be used as wings) and then we got the Finch.”
    From again:
    “…we have found a quite complete set of dinosaur-to-bird transitional fossils with no morphological “gaps” (Sereno 1999), represented by Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, and Columba, among many others (Carroll 1997, pp. 306-323; Norell and Clarke 2001; Sereno 1999; Xu et al. 1999; Xu et al. 2000; Xu et al. 2002). All have the expected possible morphologies (see Figure 3.1.1 from Prediction 3.1 for a few examples), including organisms such as Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, and the famous “BPM 1 3-13” (a dromaeosaur from China now named Cryptovolans pauli; Czerkas et al. 2002 ) which are flightless bipedal dinosaurs with modern-style feathers (Chen et al. 1998 ; Qiang et al. 1998; Norell et al. 2002). Additionally, several similar flightless dinosaurs have been found covered with nascent evolutionary precursors to modern feathers (branched feather-like integument indistinguishable from the contour feathers of true birds), including Sinornithosaurus (“Bambiraptor”), Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Microraptor, and an unnamed dromaeosaur specimen, NGMC 91, informally called “Dave” (Ji et al. 2001). The All About Archaeopteryx FAQ gives a detailed listing of the various characters of Archaeopteryx which are intermediate between reptiles and modern birds.”
    If that’s not enough, how about the penguin. Their wings don’t allow flight, nor are they arms in a traditional sense, yet they still have a use.

    I think that’s enough bubble-bursting for one night. But by all means, ask more questions. Just don’t assume that because you can’t answer the question, the question is unanswerable. And maybe, just maybe… DO SOME EFFING RESEARCH BEFORE YOU MAKE A FOOL OUT OF YOURSELF.

  20. Alex M says:

    The Miller experiment you are speaking of was not a success in any form, the amino acids they made were destroyed seconds after being made. (to do with the electrical activity in the experiment) also, the team cut out oxygen, becuase amino acids can oxidize. THey also cut out UV light becuase this also destroys any acids. The problem is that the earth has t have oxygen to block UV light, so evolution could never occur on earth. (or at all in reality!) so you need not worry about binding, the amimoa acids wouldnt have made it!!


  21. Durzal says:

    The Miller-Urey was a huge success and was of huge significance in establishing that the raw materials of proteins were easy to produce in a early earth environment it was conducted in 1952 and because of its success has inspired many others of its kind.

    You don’t seem to really understand the basics of this experiment, the electrical activity was apart of the experiment and was meant to simulate lightning storms that would have raged in an early earth environment.

    UV light destroys any acids?.. UV light has been used in subsequent experiments of this type as an alternative energy source for these type of chemical reactions so its quite clear your ill informed on this front.

    The reason this experiment cut out oxygen was because an early earth environment would have been made up mainly of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide….Oxygen came with photosynthetic organisms and they come later.

    “Evolution could never occur on earth(or at all in reality)”
    Are you high?…
    The theory of evolution tries to explain HOW evolution happens, the fact that evolution DOES happen is proven.
    Much like how the general theory of relativity tries to explain how gravity happens doesn’t mean we doubt gravity.(or do you?)
    Bird flu(H5N1) started in birds, it mutated and now can affect humans….That’s Evolution.

    Nothing in your post made any real sense, I would advise that before you post on this site, you do some genuine unbiased research, as ill informed post such as this only embarrass you….. and waste our time!

    • Xela777 says:

      The theory is how it happened, the fact that is happens is already proven?
      Unlike gravity, we have never observed evolution. Don’t give me fruit flies. They’re still fruit flies.
      Haven’t we been over this? The WHOLE thing is a theory. It’s the THEORY of evolution. The theory of evolution isn’t, “We think evolution happened this way…”, IT IS “We think all animals used to have a common ancestor, but some descendants had small mutations, which helped them survive better, so their offspring had the same characteristics, and theirs, and theirs…”

      It’s like me saying there’s a theory of Creation.
      “We THINK this is how Creation happened…”
      No. It just happened. Are there multiple ways evolution could happen?

      Indeed, the experiment proved that amino acids. I stated that as the very first post on this topic. ( I know you’re just telling him. I just feel a need to reiterate that.) The problem I am trying to solve here is how amino acids could form to make their DNA bonds.

      The sun does rip amino acids, it tears the delicate forces holding the DNA in its bonds. I am no expert chemist or meteorologist, (some may joke that that’s not all) but I believe the compounds suggested in the early atmosphere are even better at blocking out UV rays than… well, nothing?.

      • Durzal says:

        Xela you have said yourself that
        “Yes, the fact of evolution has been proven. That’s why it’s a fact. FINCHES, WILL CHANGE BEAK TYPE IF they change islands.”
        The change in beak size or shape is down to beaks of certain sizes and shapes being more useful on one island than another and finches born with particular good traits for that island, surviving over others with not so good traits for that particular island.
        That is survival of the fittest and the changes in the species because of this is called evolution.
        The finches will be still be finches(just like the fruit flies) but they will be different and this difference is evolution, if you wish to see huge jumps you would have to wait millions of years(or start trusting fossil records, genetics or homology)

        Yes the theory of evolution is a theory but the fact of evolution is that it has been seen to happen. I by no means say that all that is theorised about evolution is 100% correct… but it does happen (just like gravity).

        Yep, I know you knew, I don’t know where he could be getting his information, but its nonsense….I haven’t posted on this thread before because I’m an atheist not a chemist and that’s who you really need for a detailed and scientific response to this question but I know a bit and will try and give you a response from my own understanding.

        First off the jump between amino acid and DNA is huge, amino acids are mere molecules, once they are created they can bond together through chemical reactions to create polypeptides(proteins) of different types. (this isn’t theory you can see this through a magnifying glass) Certain proteins C,G,A,U(for RNA) can bond through chemical reactions with nitrogen(I think) to create something called a nucleobase this added in a chemical reaction with other chemical sugars (ribose) and a phosphate(salt) can and do create larger more complex molecules called nucleotides and these happy chappies are what make up RNA(again bonding through chemistry) to get DNA the chemical would need to be deoxyribose instead of ribose.

        This is just chemistry dude its not really anything to do with atheism and its not like its not all perfectly understood and laid out in any textbook on the subject, go read about it if your interested.

        Yes the sun would destroy amino acids much like it would kill many organism if it was too intense but having UV present in any experiment would in no way prevent the formation of amino acids as long as it wasn’t to intense, UV has been used as the energy source instead of an electric charge in similar reactions so whether UV was in or out has little bearing on amino acid formation especially as a early earth climate would block a lot more UV than it does nowadays(as you said) and that why stating “UV light destroys any acids” is stupid, as it has no bearing on anything.

  22. Durzal says:

    Oops, not a Magnifying Glass I meant a Microscope
    (and a powerful one)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: