It just doesn't happen

originally posted by: toktaylor
a reply to: cooperton
The fundamental problem with God and religion is that word..."belief".
Here is the problem with “Belief”. There are many levels of probability, from very unlikely to very likely, that something might be true or untrue. But once you “Believe” something, then the search for answers stops.

Great point... So what is more likely regarding the emergence of intelligent human beings:

1) They were created by something intelligent
2) they came to be by random chance without intelligence

Obviously option 1 is far, far, far more probable than option 2. So you can go ahead and believe option 2, but know that it is the astronomically less likely solution. It's similar to asking the question whether or not a Ford car would be created in a factory or by random chance. It is silly to think meticulously controlled systems (humans, cars, etc) could ever be created without intelligence.

Obviously option 1 is far, far, far more probable than option 2.

Prove that statement mathematically.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Prove that statement mathematically.

Common sense is not sufficient for you? Have you ever seen a Boeing jet come to be by random chance? Or even a device as simple as a garage door opener? Intelligible systems require something intelligent to create them. The logic is as simple as the Law of Identity which states that each thing is identical with itself:

let 1 be intelligence, and 0 be unintelligence.

1 = 1
0 does not = 1

Or in other words: intelligence equates to intelligence, whereas unintelligence does not equate to intelligence.

a reply to: cooperton
Except there is no intelligence in nature. what we find is if we strip away all the living and man-made objects from earth, we’re left with little more than gasses, water, dirt, rocks, magma, etc. It’s a very natural landscape that void of any clearly designed complex objects.

Looking beyond earth, we see a very natural Universe that also lacks clear signs of advanced complexity.

We see things like spherical stars and planets, but spherical shapes emerge naturally whenever gravity applies equal pressure to all sides of an object. And we see spiral galaxies, but these can also form naturally.

When I look around, the only real complexity I observe stems from living things, which may owe their existence to their roots in the microscopic world. Earth’s landscape — and the entire Universe — seems void of any inanimate God-made objects that might clue us into his existence.

a reply to: carsforkids

Wrong!

Right!

a reply to: cooperton

Common sense is not sufficient for you?

If common sense were enough, we wouldn't have flushing toilets. That's why you're not a scientist. You don't understand that PROOF and TESTING are critical to determining what is and what is not. Your cult has no problem ignoring the scientific method but does have a problem when it comes to proving their fraud. They and you are evil-doers. You rely on the lame, lazy and the crazy to perpetrate the fraud.

a reply to: cooperton

1 = 1
0 does not = 1

Or in other words: intelligence equates to intelligence, whereas unintelligence does not equate to intelligence.

This is a classic example of your ignorance. What a dope you are. I would hate to be you taking my report card home to mom and dad. What an embarrassment.

originally posted by: Phantom423

This is a classic example of your ignorance. What a dope you are.

I really hope you find love and drop this animosity you hold in your heart. The study of where we come from is erroneous compared to the common decency we should be showing each other.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: dragonridr

Nobody has even come close to generating the workings of life.
Do you agree? Amino acids do not hook together by themselves.
Scientists intelligently attempt to design a cell to show a cell
wasn't intelligently designed.

That is maniacal

If you're trying to say that simple forms of life have been made that is a lie.

Do you even understand anything about chemistry? Im guessing you dont know what peptides are and how they work. More interesting is nature makes them naturally around under water vents. Combining hydrogen sulfide with aminonitriles and another chemical substrate ferricyanide you get peptides. These peptides can start joining together amino acids in all kinds of unique ways.

However in a lab we can do this as well thats why yes we can create life in a lab and yes it has been done its not the mystery it was before. As we learned to decode DNA and yes even create it we have learned how to create life from nothing.

Now this does not prove their isnt a god any more then your crazy idea that only god can create life. Im afraid all it proves is we are made of chemicals and those interactions allows us to live.

a reply to: dragonridr

Do you even understand anything about chemistry?

I know the chemical make up of water.

That's about it. I'm sure you can tell right?

Now this does not prove their isnt a god any more then your crazy idea that only god can create life. Im afraid all it proves is we are made of chemicals and those interactions allows us to live.

I simply saw those other articles on google and now I have to eat me some crow.
Only smart thing I did in this regard. I told myself if I make a mistake I'll own it.
So I concede you'rte right and you have my respect.

a reply to: carsforkids

You were willing to embrace the existence of the creator and so you can see.

Those that aren't willing cannot see. Unwillingness to believe first causes spiritual blindness which no amount of logic can break. Try though they do to only ridicule and defame holding thine heads high with righteous indignation all the while blinded. That to me is an interesting but sad sight to see. And yes everyone who seeks to can discover it and know it.

a reply to: toktaylor

Except there is no intelligence in nature. what we find is if we strip away all the living and man-made objects from earth, we’re left with little more than gasses, water, dirt, rocks, magma, etc. It’s a very natural landscape that void of any clearly designed complex objects.

Then there's only what we do and do not know about it.
What we do know is that it was void of laboratories and scientists.
What we do not know is that intelligence had no part in the
landscapes creation. But even in observation of the landscape one
must take into account the order. First the landscape and then life.
What we do know is that molecules don't care about life. Nothing
just floats around in a soup working out the problems it's facing
in it's quest to be everything it can be.

If that were the case what did it only happen once? Wouldn't
football players be rising up out of football fields instead of
being born? What would be the need to self replicate? Evolution
takes to much sensibility off the table. It was forethought
that equipped us with reproductive organs male and female.
How would molecules do that? They never would in any universe.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

You were willing to embrace the existence of the creator and so you can see.

Those that aren't willing cannot see. Unwillingness to believe first causes spiritual blindness which no amount of logic can break. Try though they do to only ridicule and defame holding thine heads high with righteous indignation all the while blinded. That to me is an interesting but sad sight to see. And yes everyone who seeks to can discover it and know it.

So I guess I didn't sound like a complete idiot after all. lol

Reading your reply an odd thought jumped me. If I went to the trouble
of removing their eyelids with a razor blade? The day would come when
they would thank me.

originally posted by: carsforkids
a reply to: Nothin

So : have you and the so-called "greater intellects" got it all figured-out yet ?
Any consensus ?

Well I do have their attention. So i suppose that would be the approach
for some positive commentary on my part.

I've pointed to their lack of evidence that mud can produce logical systems
and they haven't refuted me. Because they can't.

I've made the claim that evolution requires blind faith and they haven't
refuted me.

I've pointed to the fact that evolution requires you to believe it despite
the evidence. And they have not refuted me.

I've asserted that if no one has ever created life from non life material.
Then one can not have evolution of any kind without a Creator. And that
Creator would have to be very close to the God that is described in the
Holy Bible. Again no one has refuted me.

I've offered that the Christian view of Creation has no gaps in it's
rationale. And that the faith Christians have is not blind. But rather
more credible by the corresponding scientific evidence.

For instance Creation has an explanation for why man will never
create life from dead material. So you won't catch Christians wasting
tax payer dollars chasing a fantasy. Science will never know why be
cause of it's own limitations. Science does not accept life is truly a
miracle.

I've pretty much made the case that while Christians believe in God.
Many atheists and many scientists are trying to be God. And by that
one can see that from the garden all the way up to today. Mankind
is still believing he can reach that all time ancient promise. He still
thinks he can be like God.

That's all that's happening today nothing to see folks same old story
over and over and over again all thru history. Mankind frustrated at
trying to conquer God so he conquers himself instead.

Nothings changed and never will until that final ass whip'n happens.

This thread has also shown perfectly why God calls us children.
Grown adults reverting back to kindergarten name calling and
temper tantrums. Because someone is expressing a different way
of reasoning and thinking then their own. Not all but enough.

Quoted here for you.

Read this post last night, and pondered on it a while.
Decided that there was way too much to it, and that it referenced the body of the thread, which was not read by me.
And so will refrain from commenting on it.

But it also seemed to me : that you had put a solid effort into creating the post.
So my wish for you : is that it served as a helpful exercise, for you to gather-up your thoughts, and resume the thread in one post.
Sorta like a milestone, or milles-bornes ?

Are we all not here : to enjoy our ATS entertainment activity ?

a reply to: Nothin

Read this post last night, and pondered on it a while.
Decided that there was way too much to it, and that it referenced the body of the thread, which was not read by me.
And so will refrain from commenting on it.

But it also seemed to me : that you had put a solid effort into creating the post.
So my wish for you : is that it served as a helpful exercise, for you to gather-up your thoughts, and resume the thread in one post.
Sorta like a milestone, or milles-bornes ?

Are we all not here : to enjoy our ATS entertainment activity ?

I certainly have to agree with your every word.

I have learned a great deal from this thread.

It is never unwise to be humble and humility is a great teacher.

a reply to: toktaylor

Right!

I have some subjective evidence that does refute your claim if you're interested?
Very real for me personally but either way it's compelling enough for me to say
you're wrong.

This is why we have no recollection of existing before we had a body, and likely why we will have no recollection after our death

originally posted by: dragonridr

Do you even understand anything about chemistry? Im guessing you dont know what peptides are and how they work. More interesting is nature makes them naturally around under water vents. Combining hydrogen sulfide with aminonitriles and another chemical substrate ferricyanide you get peptides. These peptides can start joining together amino acids in all kinds of unique ways.

Generally when people start a post with a condescending remark about the other's knowledge on science, they very quickly make a mistake regarding that very same topic.

The part I bolded in your comment is where you are mistaken... It's a common mistake among evolutionary believers because they suppose it must be true in order for evolution to have even the slightest chance of being possible. Amino acids and nucleotide monomers do not self-polymerize, especially in water. The reason they most definitely do not self-polymerize in water is because water is actually the reactant for polymers to break down into monomers!



Studies detecting hydrothermal vents find protein polymers but they themselves say it is from dead biological material, and not being fabricated by the vent:

"The amino acid polymers (found in hydrothermal vents) plausibly derive from biological protein and dissolve during the reaction of hydrothermal fluids along flow paths around the hydrothermal vents." source

This makes abiogenesis remarkably impossible. Even if amino acids were made in these vents, they could never polymerize under water into functional lengths.

However in a lab we can do this as well thats why yes we can create life in a lab and yes it has been done its not the mystery it was before. As we learned to decode DNA and yes even create it we have learned how to create life from nothing.

Now this does not prove their isnt a god

Agreed. If anything, it further proves that intelligence is require to make life.

a reply to: cooperton


You might want to look at this since it disproves your beliefs. Peptides are indeed created at thermal vents it apears to use a catalyst carbonyl sulfide which is produced by the vents. without the catalyst your right the reaction would be to slow.

www.mdpi.com...

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: cooperton


You might want to look at this since it disproves your beliefs. Peptides are indeed created at thermal vents it apears to use a catalyst carbonyl sulfide which is produced by the vents. without the catalyst your right the reaction would be to slow.

www.mdpi.com...

That study didn't actually try the reaction. Notice they don't have a methods section in the paper, or a section which shows a yielded result.

Even if oligomers were made from the vents, the chains would literally be 'dead in the water' because hydrolysis would inevitably take effect. Also, even if a large functional protein were miraculously made, it wouldn't be able to be replicated without a polymerase enzyme... which can only read RNA or DNA code. Take for example that even the most simple prokaryotes have around 500 genes: source

So we are taking on the faith that these hydrothermal vents, which can barely create polymers, if at all, and expecting them to be able to create around 500 genes with such great accuracy as to encode for Polymerase and other necessary enzymes?!? A prokaryote genome is around 5,000,000 base pairs long... To put things in perspective the entire works of Shakespeare has only 884,421 words. So for 5,000,000 nucleotides to assemble in meticulous order to allow the coding of a simple prokaryote would be equivalent to the entire works of Shakespeare being written by a monkey more than 5x over. In other words, it is impossible.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

This is a classic example of your ignorance. What a dope you are.

I really hope you find love and drop this animosity you hold in your heart. The study of where we come from is erroneous compared to the common decency we should be showing each other.

Decency would require that you tell the truth. If you dispute 500 journals in biological evolution and 200,000 peer-reviewed research articles, it's up to YOU to provide LABORATORY evidence, not word salad, disputing their results.
You don't do that. It's all word salad, out of context, convoluted excuses. That makes you an intentional liar and a fraud.
It's willful ignorance and propaganda.