Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Disprovng Creation: comets could have seeded life on Earth
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Budikka666
Mar 23, 2013, 9:58:10 PM3/23/13
to
Andrew
Mar 24, 2013, 6:14:20 AM3/24/13
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:dd4e9a2c-0766-452b...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-life-on-earth/
>
> Budikka
"Chemists from the University of California, Berkeley, and
the University of Hawaii, Manoa, showed that conditions in
space are capable of creating complex dipeptides, linked pairs
of amino acids, that are essential building blocks shared by all
living things. The discovery opens the door to the possibility
that these molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or
possibly meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins" --ibid
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement. Because
the truth is that amino acids will not assemble and fold into
biological proteins apart from the specified instructions to
do so that are in DNA.
This truth again points to the Creation Model of origins as
being the correct model, also to the truth that there is a God.
Special thanks to our friend Budikka for another of her posts
on, "Proving Creation". I find them interesting because all of
them support the truth of Creation, as in the above.
Thanks Budikka!
Andrew
> http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-life-on-earth/
>
> Budikka
"Chemists from the University of California, Berkeley, and
the University of Hawaii, Manoa, showed that conditions in
space are capable of creating complex dipeptides, linked pairs
of amino acids, that are essential building blocks shared by all
living things. The discovery opens the door to the possibility
that these molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or
possibly meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins" --ibid
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement. Because
the truth is that amino acids will not assemble and fold into
biological proteins apart from the specified instructions to
do so that are in DNA.
This truth again points to the Creation Model of origins as
being the correct model, also to the truth that there is a God.
Special thanks to our friend Budikka for another of her posts
on, "Proving Creation". I find them interesting because all of
them support the truth of Creation, as in the above.
Thanks Budikka!
Andrew
Devils Advocaat
Mar 24, 2013, 8:23:45 AM3/24/13
to
On 24 Mar, 10:14, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:dd4e9a2c-0766-452b...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-...
you'd know your claim is false.
There is no evidence (so far) for any god or gods.
There is no evidence that your god created anything.
Cough up your evidence.
Or admit you are lying.
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:dd4e9a2c-0766-452b...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> >http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-...
>
> > Budikka
>
> "Chemists from the University of California, Berkeley, and
> the University of Hawaii, Manoa, showed that conditions in
> space are capable of creating complex dipeptides, linked pairs
> of amino acids, that are essential building blocks shared by all
> living things. The discovery opens the door to the possibility
> that these molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or
> possibly meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins" --ibid
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
> they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement. Because
> the truth is that amino acids will not assemble and fold into
> biological proteins apart from the specified instructions to
> do so that are in DNA.
If you learnt a little more about Carbon Chemistry and catalysts,
> > Budikka
>
> "Chemists from the University of California, Berkeley, and
> the University of Hawaii, Manoa, showed that conditions in
> space are capable of creating complex dipeptides, linked pairs
> of amino acids, that are essential building blocks shared by all
> living things. The discovery opens the door to the possibility
> that these molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or
> possibly meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins" --ibid
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
> they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement. Because
> the truth is that amino acids will not assemble and fold into
> biological proteins apart from the specified instructions to
> do so that are in DNA.
you'd know your claim is false.
>
> This truth again points to the Creation Model of origins as
> being the correct model, also to the truth that there is a God.
There is no "Creation Model".
> This truth again points to the Creation Model of origins as
> being the correct model, also to the truth that there is a God.
There is no evidence (so far) for any god or gods.
There is no evidence that your god created anything.
Cough up your evidence.
Or admit you are lying.
Free Lunch
Mar 24, 2013, 8:45:27 AM3/24/13
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:23:45 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
<manky...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On 24 Mar, 10:14, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:dd4e9a2c-0766-452b...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> >http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-...
>>
>> > Budikka
>>
>> "Chemists from the University of California, Berkeley, and
>> �the University of Hawaii, Manoa, showed that conditions in
>> �space are capable of creating complex dipeptides, linked pairs
>> �of amino acids, that are essential building blocks shared by all
>> �living things. The discovery opens the door to the possibility
>> � that these molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or
>> � possibly meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins" --ibid
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
>> they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement. Because
>> the truth is that amino acids will not assemble and fold into
>> biological proteins apart from the specified instructions to
>> do so that are in DNA.
>
>If you learnt a little more about Carbon Chemistry and catalysts,
>you'd know your claim is false.
Andrew has religiously-motivated lies to spread. He has no time to learn
science or why his claims have been proven to be false.
>> This truth again points to the Creation Model of origins as
>> being the correct model, also to the truth that there is a God.
>
>There is no "Creation Model".
>
>There is no evidence (so far) for any god or gods.
>
>There is no evidence that your god created anything.
>
>Cough up your evidence.
>
>Or admit you are lying.
We all know that Andrew is lying. His lies are so blatant and so
ignorant, that it's shocking that he is able to spit them out.
<manky...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>On 24 Mar, 10:14, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:dd4e9a2c-0766-452b...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> >http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-...
>>
>> > Budikka
>>
>> "Chemists from the University of California, Berkeley, and
>> �the University of Hawaii, Manoa, showed that conditions in
>> �space are capable of creating complex dipeptides, linked pairs
>> �of amino acids, that are essential building blocks shared by all
>> �living things. The discovery opens the door to the possibility
>> � that these molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or
>> � possibly meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins" --ibid
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
>> they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement. Because
>> the truth is that amino acids will not assemble and fold into
>> biological proteins apart from the specified instructions to
>> do so that are in DNA.
>
>If you learnt a little more about Carbon Chemistry and catalysts,
>you'd know your claim is false.
science or why his claims have been proven to be false.
>> This truth again points to the Creation Model of origins as
>> being the correct model, also to the truth that there is a God.
>
>There is no "Creation Model".
>
>There is no evidence (so far) for any god or gods.
>
>There is no evidence that your god created anything.
>
>Cough up your evidence.
>
>Or admit you are lying.
ignorant, that it's shocking that he is able to spit them out.
Immortalist
Mar 24, 2013, 11:52:25 AM3/24/13
to
> Conditions in space are capable of creating complex
> dipeptides, linked pairs of amino acids, that are essential
> building blocks shared by all living things.
>
> The discovery opens the door to the possibility that these
> molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or possibly
> meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins.
> building blocks shared by all living things.
>
> The discovery opens the door to the possibility that these
> molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or possibly
>
> Amino acids will not assemble and fold into biological proteins
> apart from the specified instructions to do so that are in DNA.
>
> This truth again points to the Creation Model of origins as
> being the correct model, also to the truth that there is a God.
>
The only thing wrong with that is that Amino acids will assemble and
>
> This truth again points to the Creation Model of origins as
> being the correct model, also to the truth that there is a God.
>
fold into biological proteins apart from the specified instructions to
do so that are in DNA, since it is RNA which arranges and bonds the
Amino Acids into chains called Proteins.
RNA occurs naturally when shaking a vile with some other naturally
occurring molecules fool. Plus it's like your saying that it is
possible and not possible in the same argument. There may be an appeal
to ignorance since your implying it cannot happen because we have not
seen it happen yet, but we have seen it.
Most of the higher elements that make up biological cells and hence
our bodies, come from outer space in the form of star dust from stars
that built up the heavier elements...
........
RNA is made from "naturally_occuring" nucleotides; Molecules composed
of a nitrogen containing base, a 5-carbon sugar, and one or more
phosphate groups. Long strands of nucleotides form nucleic acids (see
above). The sequence of bases in DNA or RNA represents the genetic
(hereditary) information of a living cell.
www.nutrabio.com/Definitions/definitions_n.htm
In the late 1960s Carl R. Woese of the University of Illinois, Francis
Crick, then at the Medical Research Council in England, and I (working
at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego)
independently suggested a way out of this difficulty. We proposed that
RNA might well have come first and established what is now called the
RNA world - a world in which RNA catalyzed all the reactions necessary
for a precursor of life's last common ancestor to survive and
replicate. We also posited that RNA could subsequently have developed
the ability to link amino acids together into proteins. This scenario
could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not
evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins
and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.
There were a few reasons why we favored RNA over DNA as the originator
of the genetic system, even though DNA is now the main repository of
hereditary information. One consideration was that the ribonucleotides
in RNA are more readily synthesized than are the deoxyribonucleotides
in DNA. Moreover, it was easy to envision ways that DNA could evolve
from RNA and then, being more stable, take over RNA's role as the
guardian of heredity. We suspected that RNA came before proteins in
part because we had difficulty composing any scenario in which
proteins could replicate in the absence of nucleic acids.
During the past 10 years, a fair amount of evidence has lent credence
to the idea that the hypothetical RNA world did exist and lead to the
advent of life based on DNA, RNA and protein. Notably, in 1983 Thomas
R. Cech of the University of Colorado at Boulder and, independently,
Sidney Altman of Yale University discovered the first known ribozymes,
enzymes made of RNA. Until then, proteins were thought to carry out
all catalytic reactions in contemporary organisms. Indeed, the term
"enzyme" is usually reserved for proteins. The first ribozymes
identified could do little more than cut and join preexisting RNA.
Nevertheless, the fact that they behaved like enzymes added weight to
the notion that ancient RNA might also have been catalytic.
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
RNA world hypothesis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
RNA world hypothesis states that RNA was, before the emergence of the
first cell, the dominant, and probably the only, form of life. The
phrase "The RNA World" was first used by Walter Gilbert in 1986.
This hypothesis is supported by RNA's ability to participate in the
storage, transmission, and duplication of genetic information,
similarly to DNA, coupled with its ability to act as a ribozyme
(similar to an enzyme), catalyzing certain reactions. From the point
of view of reproduction, molecules exist for two basic purposes: self-
replication and catalysis assisting self-replication. DNA is capable
of self-replication, but only assisted by proteins. Proteins are
excellent catalysts, but fail to catalyze processes complex enough to
recreate themselves, individually. RNA is capable of both catalysis
and self-replication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
---------------------------
Abiogenesis (Greek a-bio-genesis, "non biological origins") is the
formation of life from non-living matter. Today the term is primarily
used to refer to the chemical origin of life, such as from a
'primordial soup' or in the vicinity of hydrothermal vents, and most
probably through a number of intermediate steps, such as non-living
but self-replicating molecules (biopoiesis)...
...In 1936 Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin, in his "The Origin of Life on
Earth", suggested that organic molecules could be created in an oxygen-
less atmosphere, through the action of sunlight. These molecules, he
suggested, combine in ever-more complex fashion until they are
dissolved into a coacervate droplet. These droplets could then fuse
with other droplets and break apart into two replicas of the original.
This could be viewed as a primitive form of reproduction and
metabolism. Favorable attributes such as increased durability in the
structure would survive more often than nonfavorable attributes.
Around the same time J. B. S. Haldane suggested that the earth's pre-
biotic oceans - very different from their modern counterparts - would
have formed a "hot dilute soup" in which organic compounds, the
building blocks of life, could have formed. This idea was called
biopoiesis or biopoesis, the process of living matter evolving from
self-replicating but nonliving molecules....
...[The] Clay hypothesis (sometimes called clay theory) has been
presented by Graham Cairns-Smith as a possible solution of the problem
of origin of life from inorganic non-living matter. It is based on the
assumption that original living organisms were low-complexity "naked
genes", whose shape and chemical properties influenced their survival
chances; the transition from inorganic lifeforms to DNA-based
organisms was a "genetic takeover".
Cairns-Smith suggests crystals as original naked genes, and in
particular clays. Clays can also include other atoms and molecules in
their structures, and perhaps evolved including more and more complex
structures, until DNA-related molecules would have taken control of
the organism, becoming the genetic driver of its life...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life
The iron-sulfur world theory is a hypothesis for the origin of life
advanced by Günter Wächtershäuser, a Munich chemist and patent lawyer,
involving forms of iron and sulfur. Wächtershäuser proposes that an
early form of metabolism predated genetics. Metabolism here means a
cycle of chemical reactions that produce energy in a form that can be
harnessed by other processes. The idea is that once a primitive
metabolic cycle was established, it began to produce ever more complex
compounds.
A key idea of the theory is that this early chemistry of life occurred
not in bulk solution in the oceans, but on mineral surfaces (e.g. iron
pyrites) near deep hydrothermal vents. This was an anaerobic, high-
temperature (near 100°C), high-pressure environment. The first 'cells'
would have been lipid bubbles on the mineral surfaces.
Wächtershäuser has hypothesized a special role for acetic acid, a
simple combination of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen found in vinegar.
Acetic acid is part of the citric acid cycle that is fundamental to
metabolism in cells.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-sulfur_world_theory
RNA world hypothesis states that RNA was, before the emergence of the
first cell, the dominant, and probably the only, form of life. The
phrase "The RNA World" was first used by Walter Gilbert in 1986.
This hypothesis is supported by RNA's ability to participate in the
storage, transmission, and duplication of genetic information,
similarly to DNA, coupled with its ability to act as a ribozyme
(similar to an enzyme), catalyzing certain reactions. From the point
of view of reproduction, molecules exist for two basic purposes: self-
replication and catalysis assisting self-replication. DNA is capable
of self-replication, but only assisted by proteins. Proteins are
excellent catalysts, but fail to catalyze processes complex enough to
recreate themselves, individually. RNA is capable of both catalysis
and self-replication.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/2948/orgel.html
Ralph
Mar 24, 2013, 4:01:35 PM3/24/13
to
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 24, 2013, 6:54:05 PM3/24/13
to
In article <g8ttk85bk69ds5iss...@4ax.com>,
It very well may be that he actually believes the garbage he spews.
Which is a very very scary notion. I always worry about someone this
deep in delusion being forced to face reality; will they snap?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Which is a very very scary notion. I always worry about someone this
deep in delusion being forced to face reality; will they snap?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Father Haskell
Mar 24, 2013, 6:56:00 PM3/24/13
to
On Mar 24, 6:14 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Special thanks to our friend Budikka for another of her posts
> on, "Proving Creation". I find them interesting because all of
> them support the truth of Creation, as in the above.
Which one? Mythology recounts thousands of them.
> Special thanks to our friend Budikka for another of her posts
> on, "Proving Creation". I find them interesting because all of
> them support the truth of Creation, as in the above.
Gordon
Mar 24, 2013, 7:13:20 PM3/24/13
to
thinking to this four dimensional space/time that we are able to
perceive and refuse to even consider the possibility that there is
more to the whole setup.
Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory posits 10 spatial and one temporal
dimension in the multiverse that this universe is a part of. The Bible
mentions levels of Heaven and these seem to fit in with the SS-M
multiverse concept. Of course neither can be objectively proven, since
these extra dimensions and God's domain are not "material" in our
space/time.
Does the fact that objective proof is not yet possible for us mean
that the whole set of ideas should be scrapped? I'm thinking that
ancient people who thought the earth was flat were confronted with
similar decisions and it took a while for them to gather enough
information and insight to enable them to confirm that the earth is
indeed spherical. Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
God exists within those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory?
Gordon
casey
Mar 24, 2013, 8:03:37 PM3/24/13
to
On Mar 25, 10:13 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> [...] Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
that any god/s exists.
> [...] Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
> God exists within those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory?
Don't see any reason why extra dimensions would prove
that any god/s exists.
Free Lunch
Mar 24, 2013, 8:43:05 PM3/24/13
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:13:20 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:
Almost every variation of Christianity demands that people believe
things that have been demonstrated to be false.
>The Bible
>mentions levels of Heaven and these seem to fit in with the SS-M
>multiverse concept. Of course neither can be objectively proven, since
>these extra dimensions and God's domain are not "material" in our
>space/time.
You have invented a fascinating Christian heresy. Do proceed.
>Does the fact that objective proof is not yet possible for us mean
>that the whole set of ideas should be scrapped?
No, just the ones that have been proven to be false. That takes out huge
swaths of Christian doctrine.
>I'm thinking that
>ancient people who thought the earth was flat were confronted with
>similar decisions and it took a while for them to gather enough
>information and insight to enable them to confirm that the earth is
>indeed spherical. Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
>God exists within those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory?
There was far more reason for the ancients to realize that the earth was
not flat than there is reason to claim that any gods exist.
>Gordon
in alt.talk.creationism:
things that have been demonstrated to be false.
>
>Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory posits 10 spatial and one temporal
>dimension in the multiverse that this universe is a part of.
Please tell me what evidence supports it and why I should accept it.
>Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory posits 10 spatial and one temporal
>dimension in the multiverse that this universe is a part of.
>The Bible
>mentions levels of Heaven and these seem to fit in with the SS-M
>multiverse concept. Of course neither can be objectively proven, since
>these extra dimensions and God's domain are not "material" in our
>space/time.
>Does the fact that objective proof is not yet possible for us mean
>that the whole set of ideas should be scrapped?
swaths of Christian doctrine.
>I'm thinking that
>ancient people who thought the earth was flat were confronted with
>similar decisions and it took a while for them to gather enough
>information and insight to enable them to confirm that the earth is
>indeed spherical. Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
>God exists within those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory?
not flat than there is reason to claim that any gods exist.
>Gordon
Gordon
Mar 24, 2013, 9:05:56 PM3/24/13
to
it amazing that the SS-M Theory multiverse and the Bible information
on the levels of Heaven are so congruent. This gives me reason to do
some very serious exploring and studying in these matters. That is, I
don't feel comfortable "throwing the baby out with the bath water" so
to speak.
Have you noticed that the book of Job information on Satan mentions in
two places that Satan is free to move to and fro and up and down in
our space time. That is, Satan is constrained to two of our
dimensions. His third dimension may very well be one of those other
dimensions SS-M posits. Gordon
Gordon
Mar 24, 2013, 9:10:07 PM3/24/13
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:43:05 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
simplistic literal sense. It is mostly allegory, parable, etc., format
and is easily understood if one won't cop out and take the position
that the Bible doesn't make sense, literally.
reject all this if such is your sovereign choice.
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:13:20 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote
>in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:54:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <g8ttk85bk69ds5iss...@4ax.com>,
>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
<snip>
>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:13:20 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote
>in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:54:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <g8ttk85bk69ds5iss...@4ax.com>,
>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>
>>It continues to amaze me that so many "educated" people restrict their
>>thinking to this four dimensional space/time that we are able to
>>perceive and refuse to even consider the possibility that there is
>>more to the whole setup.
>
>Almost every variation of Christianity demands that people believe
>things that have been demonstrated to be false.
>
Only if one tries to understand the Bible's information in a
>>thinking to this four dimensional space/time that we are able to
>>perceive and refuse to even consider the possibility that there is
>>more to the whole setup.
>
>Almost every variation of Christianity demands that people believe
>things that have been demonstrated to be false.
>
simplistic literal sense. It is mostly allegory, parable, etc., format
and is easily understood if one won't cop out and take the position
that the Bible doesn't make sense, literally.
>>
>>Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory posits 10 spatial and one temporal
>>dimension in the multiverse that this universe is a part of.
>
>Please tell me what evidence supports it and why I should accept it.
>
Mathematical evidence, only. You are entirely free to cop out and
>>Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory posits 10 spatial and one temporal
>>dimension in the multiverse that this universe is a part of.
>
>Please tell me what evidence supports it and why I should accept it.
>
reject all this if such is your sovereign choice.
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 24, 2013, 9:28:17 PM3/24/13
to
In article <7m1vk8l8kbpemn5un...@4ax.com>,
Because there is no evidence of anything else.
> Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory posits 10 spatial and one temporal
> dimension in the multiverse that this universe is a part of. The Bible
> mentions levels of Heaven and these seem to fit in with the SS-M
> multiverse concept. Of course neither can be objectively proven, since
> these extra dimensions and God's domain are not "material" in our
> space/time.
Where's your evidence that these possible other dimensions aren't as
physical as the ones we recognize in every day life?
> Does the fact that objective proof is not yet possible for us mean
> that the whole set of ideas should be scrapped? I'm thinking that
> ancient people who thought the earth was flat were confronted with
> similar decisions and it took a while for them to gather enough
> information and insight to enable them to confirm that the earth is
> indeed spherical. Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
> God exists within those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory?
When the evidence appears, we can discuss it then. Until then, it's
nothing but navel-gazing.
> Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory posits 10 spatial and one temporal
> dimension in the multiverse that this universe is a part of. The Bible
> mentions levels of Heaven and these seem to fit in with the SS-M
> multiverse concept. Of course neither can be objectively proven, since
> these extra dimensions and God's domain are not "material" in our
> space/time.
physical as the ones we recognize in every day life?
> Does the fact that objective proof is not yet possible for us mean
> that the whole set of ideas should be scrapped? I'm thinking that
> ancient people who thought the earth was flat were confronted with
> similar decisions and it took a while for them to gather enough
> information and insight to enable them to confirm that the earth is
> indeed spherical. Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
> God exists within those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory?
nothing but navel-gazing.
Budikka666
Mar 24, 2013, 9:39:41 PM3/24/13
to
On Mar 24, 5:14 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
> they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.
So facts are foolish if they disagree with your delusional lies and
> Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
> they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.
horseshit>? And that's the best you have to offer: your own
academcially unqualified, demonstratedly dishonest and ignorant
*opinion* against the weight of one hundred and fifty years of solid
science proving that you;re conpletely wrong? No wonder you're
terrifed of debating me despite your proven lie that you have an
omnipotent god behind you.
But once again, congratulations on changing the thread subject and
getting all of the atheists to go along with you and support your
blatant lies and shameless dishonesty. They really are very
supportive of you in that regard, aren't they?
Unfortunately for you, whereas I've offered literally hundreds of
threads of scientifically supported disproof with references, all
you've ever offered is your own ignorant opinion and downright
dishonesty. Indeed, every single time I've asked you for solid
positive scientific evidence (not even proof), YOU RAN AWAY! (see
below for a documented history of your shameful denial of your god.
I think that alone will tell everyone who reads these threads with an
open mind, everything they need to know about your creaitonist lies
despite your success in fraudulently changing the title.
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admits he has nothing to
offer:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5d95451e8d8c4a1?hl=en&scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank's most recent admission that his
omnipotent god is worthless in four threads simultaneously:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5d95451e8d8c4a1?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8b50cdfc13197e8?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/7b801d93211e51e7?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits he has no faith in his own
god:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits that even he doesn't believe:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
More excuses from Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/cbe97ddc53be5a00?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/59b246e0c8e3e4f9?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/986crjk
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e9b89ac33e01ce5b?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/836bea1f79468d9b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/728ceae4eb1d55e3?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/3a31410d460b908e?hl=en&scoring=d&
Budikka
Budikka666
Mar 24, 2013, 9:42:21 PM3/24/13
to
On Mar 24, 8:10 pm, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> Only if one tries to understand the Bible's information in a
> simplistic literal sense. It is mostly allegory, parable, etc., format
> and is easily understood if one won't cop out and take the position
> that the Bible doesn't make sense, literally.
You mean in the same way NT fiction tells us that *Jesus* understood
> Only if one tries to understand the Bible's information in a
> simplistic literal sense. It is mostly allegory, parable, etc., format
> and is easily understood if one won't cop out and take the position
> that the Bible doesn't make sense, literally.
it? So you are asserting that Jesus was wrong? That's quite an
admission.
Budikka
Father Haskell
Mar 24, 2013, 9:56:03 PM3/24/13
to
On Mar 24, 9:05 pm, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:03:37 -0700 (PDT), casey
>
> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:03:37 -0700 (PDT), casey
>
> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >On Mar 25, 10:13 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >> [...] Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
> >> God exists within those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory?
>
> >Don't see any reason why extra dimensions would prove
> >that any god/s exists.
>
> Right, extra dimensions do not "prove" God's existence but I do find
> it amazing that the SS-M Theory multiverse and the Bible information
> on the levels of Heaven are so congruent. This gives me reason to do
> some very serious exploring and studying in these matters. That is, I
> don't feel comfortable "throwing the baby out with the bath water" so
> to speak.
Pardon me, but where are singing midgets involved in
> >On Mar 25, 10:13 am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >> [...] Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
> >> God exists within those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory?
>
> >Don't see any reason why extra dimensions would prove
> >that any god/s exists.
>
> Right, extra dimensions do not "prove" God's existence but I do find
> it amazing that the SS-M Theory multiverse and the Bible information
> on the levels of Heaven are so congruent. This gives me reason to do
> some very serious exploring and studying in these matters. That is, I
> don't feel comfortable "throwing the baby out with the bath water" so
> to speak.
string theory?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1paYhEDFQIw
Sir Fred M. McNeill
Mar 24, 2013, 10:03:52 PM3/24/13
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:13:20 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote:
>It continues to amaze me that so many "educated" people restrict their
>thinking to this four dimensional space/time that we are able to
>perceive and refuse to even consider the possibility that there is
>more to the whole setup.
>
Of course there is "more to the whole setup". The place
>It continues to amaze me that so many "educated" people restrict their
>thinking to this four dimensional space/time that we are able to
>perceive and refuse to even consider the possibility that there is
>more to the whole setup.
>
is so weird and strange in its very existence so as to
imply and demand more. Higher dimensions, higher
information structures, and all.
'Humans' are just constrained to 'human' perceptions
and actions. Hubris then 'says' that is all.
Christopher A. Lee
Mar 24, 2013, 10:04:47 PM3/24/13
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:56:03 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
<father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 24, 9:05�pm, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:03:37 -0700 (PDT), casey
>>
>> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >On Mar 25, 10:13�am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> >> [...] Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
>> >> God exists within those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory?
>>
>> >Don't see any reason why extra dimensions would prove
>> >that any god/s exists.
>>
>> Right, extra dimensions do not "prove" God's existence but I do find
>> it amazing that the SS-M Theory multiverse and the Bible information
>> on the levels of Heaven are so congruent.
Only in the deluded imagination of a believer desperate to rationalise
<father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 24, 9:05�pm, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 17:03:37 -0700 (PDT), casey
>>
>> <jgkjca...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >On Mar 25, 10:13�am, Gordon <gordo...@swbell.net> wrote:
>> >> [...] Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
>> >> God exists within those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory?
>>
>> >Don't see any reason why extra dimensions would prove
>> >that any god/s exists.
>>
>> Right, extra dimensions do not "prove" God's existence but I do find
>> it amazing that the SS-M Theory multiverse and the Bible information
>> on the levels of Heaven are so congruent.
anything to fit.
>> This gives me reason to do
>> some very serious exploring and studying in these matters. That is, I
>> don't feel comfortable "throwing the baby out with the bath water" so
>> to speak.
Ken
Mar 24, 2013, 10:23:21 PM3/24/13
to
On Mar 23, 6:58 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-...
>
> Budikka
This info is wasted on brainwashed fools like Andrew, Jason,
Fagsnatch, Davie Boi and their ilk
> http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-...
>
> Budikka
This info is wasted on brainwashed fools like Andrew, Jason,
Fagsnatch, Davie Boi and their ilk
Christopher A. Lee
Mar 24, 2013, 10:31:06 PM3/24/13
to
extra dimensions as anything more than a mathematical abstraction.
There is literally an infinite number of things that can be made up,
and he attacks us for "refusing to even consider the possibility" of
just one out of all these.
When there is no reason to.
Has the moron never heard of Ockham's razor?
Like all the "infinity minus one" others it is a bridge to be crossed
if and when we ever get there.
And like far too many theists he rudely and stupidly talks at an
audience outside his religion he knows don't believe in his god in the
first place for it to be hiding anywhere anyway,
In exactly the same way he doesn't believe in Zeus and all the others.
What's wrong with him?
Andrew
Mar 24, 2013, 10:34:52 PM3/24/13
to
"Ralph" wrote in message news:3dadnZqByeo2xtLM...@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:
Explain what you believe would be the *necessary criteria* for
any evidence to have that would support the premise that there
has been a Creation by a Creator. Thank you.
> Andrew wrote:
any evidence to have that would support the premise that there
has been a Creation by a Creator. Thank you.
Smiler
Mar 24, 2013, 10:35:51 PM3/24/13
to
proven, by manned flight, astronomy and space exploration, that he wasn't
there. How convenient for you that he's now moved to 'other dimensions'
that cannot be shown to exist? Who did the removals or did he use a U-Haul?
Do you _really_ expect us to accept your pathetic unevidenced excuses for
your supposed god's non-appearance just on your say-so?
--
Smiler,
The godless one. a.a.# 2279
All gods are tailored to order. They're made to
exactly fit the prejudices of their believers.
Mitchell Holman
Mar 24, 2013, 10:43:29 PM3/24/13
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:tqWdnVtpJoisKtLM...@earthlink.com:
You are the one claiming there is a "Creation
by a Creator". What evidence do you have to support
that?
news:tqWdnVtpJoisKtLM...@earthlink.com:
by a Creator". What evidence do you have to support
that?
hypatiab7
Mar 25, 2013, 1:06:24 AM3/25/13
to
On Mar 24, 6:54 pm, Jeanne Douglas <hlwdj...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
> In article <g8ttk85bk69ds5issd2nq6jf0pria3k...@4ax.com>,
As long as they do it in private.
> In article <g8ttk85bk69ds5issd2nq6jf0pria3k...@4ax.com>,
> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:23:45 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
> > <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:23:45 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
hypatiab7
Mar 25, 2013, 1:14:33 AM3/25/13
to
On Mar 24, 10:34 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Ralph" wrote in messagenews:3dadnZqByeo2xtLM...@giganews.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >>>http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-...
That's up to you, Andrew,. You're the believer.
We're not going to help you. All you have to do is
learn how to think.
> "Ralph" wrote in messagenews:3dadnZqByeo2xtLM...@giganews.com...
> > Andrew wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >>>http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-...
We're not going to help you. All you have to do is
learn how to think.
Andrew
Mar 25, 2013, 3:16:26 AM3/25/13
to
"Mitchell Holman" <nomailverizon.net> wrote in message news:XnsA18DDCB56B6D5...@216.196.121.131...
If you have no criteria to weigh the evidence, then it would
be futile to present it.
be futile to present it.
Andrew
Mar 25, 2013, 3:16:44 AM3/25/13
to
"hypatiab7" wrote in message news:281a7753-2cf1-4965...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
You don't have to help me. I already know. I'm just trying to help
and answer your question.
> All you have to do is learn how to think.
The question is: --> "What would be the necessary criteria for
any evidence to have that you would accept that would support
the premise that there has been a Creation by a Creator?"
You must agree that if there is no *criteria* to weigh evidence,
asks a theist for evidence, they really do _not_ want to see it.
> "Andrew" wrote:
and answer your question.
> All you have to do is learn how to think.
any evidence to have that you would accept that would support
the premise that there has been a Creation by a Creator?"
You must agree that if there is no *criteria* to weigh evidence,
then it would be futile to present it.
In fact, I'm now beginning to understand that when an atheist
asks a theist for evidence, they really do _not_ want to see it.
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 25, 2013, 4:22:38 AM3/25/13
to
In article <R92dnSTaYp6zZNLM...@earthlink.com>,
If we knew what evidence would work, we wouldn't have to ask, now would
we?
Whatever it is, it has be falsibiable. It has to be objective.
Regrowing an amputated limb would be a good start, but better get to it
real fast now since medicine is getting closer.
Something else you need to remember. You could prove your god's
existence, but that wouldn't mean we would worship it.
we?
Whatever it is, it has be falsibiable. It has to be objective.
Regrowing an amputated limb would be a good start, but better get to it
real fast now since medicine is getting closer.
Something else you need to remember. You could prove your god's
existence, but that wouldn't mean we would worship it.
Andrew
Mar 25, 2013, 5:27:46 AM3/25/13
to
"Immortalist" wrote in message news:508f149e-d263-4fad...@vv1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>> Conditions in space are capable of creating complex
>> dipeptides, linked pairs of amino acids, that are essential
>> building blocks shared by all living things.
>>
>> The discovery opens the door to the possibility that these
>> molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or possibly
>> meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins.
>>
>> Amino acids will not assemble and fold into biological proteins
>> apart from the specified instructions to do so that are in DNA.
>>
>> This truth again points to the Creation Model of origins as
>> being the correct model, also to the truth that there is a God.
>>
>
> The only thing wrong with that is that Amino acids will assemble and
> fold into biological proteins apart from the specified instructions to
> do so that are in DNA,
No way.
> since it is RNA which arranges and bonds the Amino Acids into
> chains called Proteins.
RNA receives instructions --> from DNA.
Also, AA chains must be folded correctly to be functional.
Does RNA do that? No.
> RNA occurs naturally when shaking a vile with some other naturally
> occurring molecules
RNA is not synthesized ~except~ in cells that are *already* alive.
Also, the nucleotides (of which RNA is made) require for -their-
synthesis the mechanism to do so that is in ~living~ cells.
> Most of the higher elements that make up biological cells and hence
> our bodies, come from outer space in the form of star dust from stars
> that built up the heavier elements...
That is the story you were told.
Have you considered God, and Creation?
> RNA is made from "naturally_occuring" nucleotides; Molecules composed
> of a nitrogen containing base, a 5-carbon sugar, and one or more
> phosphate groups. Long strands of nucleotides form nucleic acids (see
> above). The sequence of bases in DNA or RNA represents the genetic
> (hereditary) information of a living cell.
>
> www.nutrabio.com/Definitions/definitions_n.htm
>
> In the late 1960s Carl R. Woese of the University of Illinois, Francis
> Crick, then at the Medical Research Council in England, and I (working
> at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego)
> independently suggested a way out of this difficulty. We proposed that
> RNA might well have come first and established what is now called the
> RNA world - a world in which RNA catalyzed all the reactions necessary
> for a precursor of life's last common ancestor to survive and
> replicate. We also posited that RNA could subsequently have developed
> the ability to link amino acids together into proteins. This scenario
> could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not
> evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins
> and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.
>
> There were a few reasons why we favored RNA over DNA as the originator
> of the genetic system, even though DNA is now the main repository of
> hereditary information. One consideration was that the ribonucleotides
> in RNA are more readily synthesized than are the deoxyribonucleotides
> in DNA. Moreover, it was easy to envision
Note: He says, "it was easy to envision" aka, "fantasize"
Did you hear that? The "RNA world" is not something that
is real, or was ever real, except in the fantasies of those who
envisioned it.
> ways that DNA could evolve
> from RNA and then, being more stable, take over RNA's role as the
> guardian of heredity. We suspected that RNA came before proteins in
> part because
> we had difficulty composing any scenario in which
> proteins could replicate in the absence of nucleic acids.
Absolutely, that's what I stated above.
"Amino acids will not link to form a biological protein, apart from
the mechanism to do so which is in cells that are **already** alive."
Therefore apart from a purposeful creation, there is no mechanism
for the abiogenesis of the proteins which make up life. This is clear
and positive evidence pointing to a creation by an awesome Creator.
Worship Him!
>> Conditions in space are capable of creating complex
>> dipeptides, linked pairs of amino acids, that are essential
>> building blocks shared by all living things.
>>
>> The discovery opens the door to the possibility that these
>> molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or possibly
>> meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins.
>>
>> Amino acids will not assemble and fold into biological proteins
>> apart from the specified instructions to do so that are in DNA.
>>
>> This truth again points to the Creation Model of origins as
>> being the correct model, also to the truth that there is a God.
>>
>
> The only thing wrong with that is that Amino acids will assemble and
> fold into biological proteins apart from the specified instructions to
> do so that are in DNA,
> since it is RNA which arranges and bonds the Amino Acids into
> chains called Proteins.
Also, AA chains must be folded correctly to be functional.
Does RNA do that? No.
> RNA occurs naturally when shaking a vile with some other naturally
> occurring molecules
Also, the nucleotides (of which RNA is made) require for -their-
synthesis the mechanism to do so that is in ~living~ cells.
> Most of the higher elements that make up biological cells and hence
> our bodies, come from outer space in the form of star dust from stars
> that built up the heavier elements...
Have you considered God, and Creation?
> RNA is made from "naturally_occuring" nucleotides; Molecules composed
> of a nitrogen containing base, a 5-carbon sugar, and one or more
> phosphate groups. Long strands of nucleotides form nucleic acids (see
> above). The sequence of bases in DNA or RNA represents the genetic
> (hereditary) information of a living cell.
>
> www.nutrabio.com/Definitions/definitions_n.htm
>
> In the late 1960s Carl R. Woese of the University of Illinois, Francis
> Crick, then at the Medical Research Council in England, and I (working
> at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego)
> independently suggested a way out of this difficulty. We proposed that
> RNA might well have come first and established what is now called the
> RNA world - a world in which RNA catalyzed all the reactions necessary
> for a precursor of life's last common ancestor to survive and
> replicate. We also posited that RNA could subsequently have developed
> the ability to link amino acids together into proteins. This scenario
> could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not
> evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins
> and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.
>
> There were a few reasons why we favored RNA over DNA as the originator
> of the genetic system, even though DNA is now the main repository of
> hereditary information. One consideration was that the ribonucleotides
> in RNA are more readily synthesized than are the deoxyribonucleotides
> in DNA. Moreover, it was easy to envision
Did you hear that? The "RNA world" is not something that
is real, or was ever real, except in the fantasies of those who
envisioned it.
> ways that DNA could evolve
> from RNA and then, being more stable, take over RNA's role as the
> guardian of heredity. We suspected that RNA came before proteins in
> part because
> we had difficulty composing any scenario in which
> proteins could replicate in the absence of nucleic acids.
"Amino acids will not link to form a biological protein, apart from
the mechanism to do so which is in cells that are **already** alive."
Therefore apart from a purposeful creation, there is no mechanism
for the abiogenesis of the proteins which make up life. This is clear
and positive evidence pointing to a creation by an awesome Creator.
Worship Him!
Andrew
Mar 25, 2013, 5:50:00 AM3/25/13
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:1e1291ae-c408-4b14...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
I disagree with no facts. I simply challenge your fantasies.
Here is a little biochemical axiom that will help you, and
the chemists you cited above.
"Amino acids will not link to form a biological protein,
apart from the mechanism to do so which is in cells that
are *already* alive."
This means than apart from a purposeful creation, there is
no mechanism for the synthesis of proteins which make up
life. This is clear and positive evidence pointing to creation
by an awesome Creator.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
>> they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.
>
> So facts are foolish if they disagree with your delusional lies..
>
>> Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
>> they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.
>
I disagree with no facts. I simply challenge your fantasies.
Here is a little biochemical axiom that will help you, and
the chemists you cited above.
"Amino acids will not link to form a biological protein,
apart from the mechanism to do so which is in cells that
This means than apart from a purposeful creation, there is
no mechanism for the synthesis of proteins which make up
life. This is clear and positive evidence pointing to creation
by an awesome Creator.
Message has been deleted
Mitchell Holman
Mar 25, 2013, 8:40:47 AM3/25/13
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:R92dnSTaYp6zZNLM...@earthlink.com:
If it is observable, objective, and peer
reviewed by people trained in the field I will
accept it.
Show us what you've got.
news:R92dnSTaYp6zZNLM...@earthlink.com:
reviewed by people trained in the field I will
accept it.
Show us what you've got.
Mitchell Holman
Mar 25, 2013, 8:43:32 AM3/25/13
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:7LOdnYtcEItris3M...@earthlink.com:
Why do you believe it is a "him"? Why
not a her or a them?
Clearly you have evidence of a single
male deity. What is that evidence?
news:7LOdnYtcEItris3M...@earthlink.com:
not a her or a them?
Clearly you have evidence of a single
male deity. What is that evidence?
Immortalist
Mar 25, 2013, 10:41:02 AM3/25/13
to
On Mar 25, 2:27 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Immortalist" wrote in messagenews:508f149e-d263-4fad...@vv1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
evidence and consider the evidence. Don't blame me for your ignorance.
> > since it is RNA which arranges and bonds the Amino Acids into
> > chains called Proteins.
>
> RNA receives instructions --> from DNA.
>
> Also, AA chains must be folded correctly to be functional.
>
Are you trying to say that it is impossible for AA chains to form?
Please provide the links to the evidence. At least be fair, I provided
you links to the evidence which supports some of the various theories
that exist.
> Does RNA do that? No.
>
The instructions from the DNA can only be implemented by one of the
three forms of RNA stupid. Here is some evidence;
Messenger RNA (mRNA) is the RNA that carries information from DNA to
the ribosome, the sites of protein synthesis (translation) in the
cell. The coding sequence of the mRNA determines the amino acid
sequence in the protein that is produced. Many RNAs do not code for
protein however (about 97% of the transcriptional output is non-
protein-coding in eukaryotes).
These so-called non-coding RNAs ("ncRNA") can be encoded by their own
genes (RNA genes), but can also derive from mRNA introns. The most
prominent examples of non-coding RNAs are transfer RNA (tRNA) and
ribosomal RNA (rRNA), both of which are involved in the process of
translation. There are also non-coding RNAs involved in gene
regulation, RNA processing and other roles. Certain RNAs are able to
catalyse chemical reactions such as cutting and ligating other RNA
molecules, and the catalysis of peptide bond formation in the
ribosome; these are known as ribozymes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA
Your theory implies that DNA does something directly to the production
of proteins but clearly the evidence favors other theories, like the
strongly supported theory that only RNA builds proteins and NO DNA
builds nor directly influences the assembly of protein. You must not
argue with anyone that actually understands biology idiot.
> > RNA occurs naturally when shaking a vile with some other naturally
> > occurring molecules
>
> RNA is not synthesized ~except~ in cells that are *already* alive.
>
I pointed you to the evidence for the theory and you have not
challenged it one bit with your stupid little "RNA is not
synthesized..." noises and squawks. See links above before you say
something else that is clearly false: that is if you didn't snip them
out of ignorance.
> Also, the nucleotides (of which RNA is made) require for -their-
> synthesis the mechanism to do so that is in ~living~ cells.
>
> > Most of the higher elements that make up biological cells and hence
> > our bodies, come from outer space in the form of star dust from stars
> > that built up the heavier elements...
>
> That is the story you were told.
>
Wrong, I checked out the available evidence and believe based on that.
You have not challenged the evidence for when and in what order
lighter and heavier elements were and are fused in growing stars which
after they nova spread star dust around their areas, with some rant
about a "story".
> Have you considered God, and Creation?
>
Is there evidence for that or should I just consider all theories out
of kindness?
> > RNA is made from "naturally_occuring" nucleotides; Molecules composed
> > of a nitrogen containing base, a 5-carbon sugar, and one or more
> > phosphate groups. Long strands of nucleotides form nucleic acids (see
> > above). The sequence of bases in DNA or RNA represents the genetic
> > (hereditary) information of a living cell.
>
> >www.nutrabio.com/Definitions/definitions_n.htm
>
> > In the late 1960s Carl R. Woese of the University of Illinois, Francis
> > Crick, then at the Medical Research Council in England, and I (working
> > at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego)
> > independently suggested a way out of this difficulty. We proposed that
> > RNA might well have come first and established what is now called the
> > RNA world - a world in which RNA catalyzed all the reactions necessary
> > for a precursor of life's last common ancestor to survive and
> > replicate. We also posited that RNA could subsequently have developed
> > the ability to link amino acids together into proteins. This scenario
> > could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not
> > evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins
> > and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.
>
> > There were a few reasons why we favored RNA over DNA as the originator
> > of the genetic system, even though DNA is now the main repository of
> > hereditary information. One consideration was that the ribonucleotides
> > in RNA are more readily synthesized than are the deoxyribonucleotides
> > in DNA. Moreover, it was easy to envision
>
> Note: He says, "it was easy to envision" aka, "fantasize"
>
In science there are ideas and also there are tested ideas. When we
research and speculate we sometimes envision, consider, fantasize or
whatever you want to call it. But then the idea gets tested over time.
The author probably was implying that these ideas need more
experiments to have enough evidence to favor some expires over others,
so in that sense he would agree that the idea is still in some ways in
the "fantasize" stage. Are you religionists saying that scientists
shouldn't try to figure things out?
> Did you hear that? The "RNA world" is not something that
> is real, or was ever real, except in the fantasies of those who
> envisioned it.
>
Wrong. The RNA world has some evidence which I pointed you towards.
But the logic mistake your confusing the issue with is
"determination". Like with a coin flip, will it come up heads or
tails, it cannot be determined whether it will land one heads and it
cannot be determined whether it will not land on heads, that is before
the coin toss. You argument form is invalid because your implying
something cannot be determined true or false so you claim it is
determined false because it could not be determined way.
Red Herring.
> > ways that DNA could evolve
> > from RNA and then, being more stable, take over RNA's role as the
> > guardian of heredity. We suspected that RNA came before proteins in
> > part because
> > we had difficulty composing any scenario in which
> > proteins could replicate in the absence of nucleic acids.
>
> Absolutely, that's what I stated above.
>
Wrong. The researchers are talking about whether there is enough
evidence yet to determine the issue conclusively ether true or false.
But your implying that it cannot be determined true or false and are
claiming it is false because it can't be determined true or false.
Maybe you should study some logic so your not so easily slaughtered by
even philosophy hobbyists like me.
> "Amino acids will not link to form a biological protein, apart from
> the mechanism to do so which is in cells that are **already** alive."
>
Your claiming that something is impossible but you don't have any
evidence why.
> Therefore apart from a purposeful creation, there is no mechanism
> for the abiogenesis of the proteins which make up life. This is clear
> and positive evidence pointing to a creation by an awesome Creator.
>
One thing, you forgot to provide this evidence that supposedly
determines the issue.
> Worship Him!
Your problem is that you Christian ass wipes are as stupid as the
atheists that teach you philosophy and science. You put your faith in
atheists to teach you philosophy and science. Only problem is their
philosophy and science are miniature versions of the real thing. We
used to ask where they learned their philosophy and science; out of a
Cracker Jacks box?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqAwfv3HYGo
> "Immortalist" wrote in messagenews:508f149e-d263-4fad...@vv1g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
> >> Conditions in space are capable of creating complex
> >> dipeptides, linked pairs of amino acids, that are essential
> >> building blocks shared by all living things.
>
> >> The discovery opens the door to the possibility that these
> >> molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or possibly
> >> meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins.
>
> >> Amino acids will not assemble and fold into biological proteins
> >> apart from the specified instructions to do so that are in DNA.
>
> >> This truth again points to the Creation Model of origins as
> >> being the correct model, also to the truth that there is a God.
>
> > The only thing wrong with that is that Amino acids will assemble and
> > fold into biological proteins apart from the specified instructions to
> > do so that are in DNA,
>
> No way.
>
Yes way ass wipe. I pointed you to the sources and the ways to get the
> >> dipeptides, linked pairs of amino acids, that are essential
> >> building blocks shared by all living things.
>
> >> The discovery opens the door to the possibility that these
> >> molecules were brought to Earth aboard a comet or possibly
> >> meteorites, catalyzing the formation of proteins.
>
> >> Amino acids will not assemble and fold into biological proteins
> >> apart from the specified instructions to do so that are in DNA.
>
> >> This truth again points to the Creation Model of origins as
> >> being the correct model, also to the truth that there is a God.
>
> > The only thing wrong with that is that Amino acids will assemble and
> > fold into biological proteins apart from the specified instructions to
> > do so that are in DNA,
>
> No way.
>
evidence and consider the evidence. Don't blame me for your ignorance.
> > since it is RNA which arranges and bonds the Amino Acids into
> > chains called Proteins.
>
> RNA receives instructions --> from DNA.
>
> Also, AA chains must be folded correctly to be functional.
>
Please provide the links to the evidence. At least be fair, I provided
you links to the evidence which supports some of the various theories
that exist.
> Does RNA do that? No.
>
three forms of RNA stupid. Here is some evidence;
Messenger RNA (mRNA) is the RNA that carries information from DNA to
the ribosome, the sites of protein synthesis (translation) in the
cell. The coding sequence of the mRNA determines the amino acid
sequence in the protein that is produced. Many RNAs do not code for
protein however (about 97% of the transcriptional output is non-
protein-coding in eukaryotes).
These so-called non-coding RNAs ("ncRNA") can be encoded by their own
genes (RNA genes), but can also derive from mRNA introns. The most
prominent examples of non-coding RNAs are transfer RNA (tRNA) and
ribosomal RNA (rRNA), both of which are involved in the process of
translation. There are also non-coding RNAs involved in gene
regulation, RNA processing and other roles. Certain RNAs are able to
catalyse chemical reactions such as cutting and ligating other RNA
molecules, and the catalysis of peptide bond formation in the
ribosome; these are known as ribozymes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA
Your theory implies that DNA does something directly to the production
of proteins but clearly the evidence favors other theories, like the
strongly supported theory that only RNA builds proteins and NO DNA
builds nor directly influences the assembly of protein. You must not
argue with anyone that actually understands biology idiot.
> > RNA occurs naturally when shaking a vile with some other naturally
> > occurring molecules
>
> RNA is not synthesized ~except~ in cells that are *already* alive.
>
challenged it one bit with your stupid little "RNA is not
synthesized..." noises and squawks. See links above before you say
something else that is clearly false: that is if you didn't snip them
out of ignorance.
> Also, the nucleotides (of which RNA is made) require for -their-
> synthesis the mechanism to do so that is in ~living~ cells.
>
> > Most of the higher elements that make up biological cells and hence
> > our bodies, come from outer space in the form of star dust from stars
> > that built up the heavier elements...
>
> That is the story you were told.
>
You have not challenged the evidence for when and in what order
lighter and heavier elements were and are fused in growing stars which
after they nova spread star dust around their areas, with some rant
about a "story".
> Have you considered God, and Creation?
>
of kindness?
> > RNA is made from "naturally_occuring" nucleotides; Molecules composed
> > of a nitrogen containing base, a 5-carbon sugar, and one or more
> > phosphate groups. Long strands of nucleotides form nucleic acids (see
> > above). The sequence of bases in DNA or RNA represents the genetic
> > (hereditary) information of a living cell.
>
> >www.nutrabio.com/Definitions/definitions_n.htm
>
> > In the late 1960s Carl R. Woese of the University of Illinois, Francis
> > Crick, then at the Medical Research Council in England, and I (working
> > at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego)
> > independently suggested a way out of this difficulty. We proposed that
> > RNA might well have come first and established what is now called the
> > RNA world - a world in which RNA catalyzed all the reactions necessary
> > for a precursor of life's last common ancestor to survive and
> > replicate. We also posited that RNA could subsequently have developed
> > the ability to link amino acids together into proteins. This scenario
> > could have occurred, we noted, if prebiotic RNA had two properties not
> > evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins
> > and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.
>
> > There were a few reasons why we favored RNA over DNA as the originator
> > of the genetic system, even though DNA is now the main repository of
> > hereditary information. One consideration was that the ribonucleotides
> > in RNA are more readily synthesized than are the deoxyribonucleotides
> > in DNA. Moreover, it was easy to envision
>
> Note: He says, "it was easy to envision" aka, "fantasize"
>
research and speculate we sometimes envision, consider, fantasize or
whatever you want to call it. But then the idea gets tested over time.
The author probably was implying that these ideas need more
experiments to have enough evidence to favor some expires over others,
so in that sense he would agree that the idea is still in some ways in
the "fantasize" stage. Are you religionists saying that scientists
shouldn't try to figure things out?
> Did you hear that? The "RNA world" is not something that
> is real, or was ever real, except in the fantasies of those who
> envisioned it.
>
But the logic mistake your confusing the issue with is
"determination". Like with a coin flip, will it come up heads or
tails, it cannot be determined whether it will land one heads and it
cannot be determined whether it will not land on heads, that is before
the coin toss. You argument form is invalid because your implying
something cannot be determined true or false so you claim it is
determined false because it could not be determined way.
Red Herring.
> > ways that DNA could evolve
> > from RNA and then, being more stable, take over RNA's role as the
> > guardian of heredity. We suspected that RNA came before proteins in
> > part because
> > we had difficulty composing any scenario in which
> > proteins could replicate in the absence of nucleic acids.
>
> Absolutely, that's what I stated above.
>
evidence yet to determine the issue conclusively ether true or false.
But your implying that it cannot be determined true or false and are
claiming it is false because it can't be determined true or false.
Maybe you should study some logic so your not so easily slaughtered by
even philosophy hobbyists like me.
> "Amino acids will not link to form a biological protein, apart from
> the mechanism to do so which is in cells that are **already** alive."
>
evidence why.
> Therefore apart from a purposeful creation, there is no mechanism
> for the abiogenesis of the proteins which make up life. This is clear
> and positive evidence pointing to a creation by an awesome Creator.
>
determines the issue.
> Worship Him!
Your problem is that you Christian ass wipes are as stupid as the
atheists that teach you philosophy and science. You put your faith in
atheists to teach you philosophy and science. Only problem is their
philosophy and science are miniature versions of the real thing. We
used to ask where they learned their philosophy and science; out of a
Cracker Jacks box?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqAwfv3HYGo
Ralph
Mar 25, 2013, 2:29:07 PM3/25/13
to
Father Haskell
Mar 25, 2013, 2:34:10 PM3/25/13
to
On Mar 25, 5:50 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1e1291ae-c408-4b14...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Name one biological process that doesn't require water. Name
one that requires a magic sky pixie.
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1e1291ae-c408-4b14...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
one that requires a magic sky pixie.
Christopher A. Lee
Mar 25, 2013, 2:40:35 PM3/25/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 11:34:10 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
<father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 25, 5:50�am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1e1291ae-c408-4b14...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >> Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
>> >> they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.
>>
>> > So facts are foolish if they disagree with your delusional lies..
>>
>> I disagree with no facts. I simply challenge your fantasies.
>>
>> Here is a little biochemical axiom that will help you, and
>> the chemists you cited above.
>>
>> �"Amino acids will not link to form a biological protein,
>> � apart from the mechanism to do so which is in cells that
>> � are *already* alive."
An "axiom" that the proven serial liar made up.
<father...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Mar 25, 5:50�am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1e1291ae-c408-4b14...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >> Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
>> >> they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.
>>
>> > So facts are foolish if they disagree with your delusional lies..
>>
>> I disagree with no facts. I simply challenge your fantasies.
>>
>> Here is a little biochemical axiom that will help you, and
>> the chemists you cited above.
>>
>> �"Amino acids will not link to form a biological protein,
>> � apart from the mechanism to do so which is in cells that
>> � are *already* alive."
>> This means than apart from a purposeful creation, there is
>> no mechanism for the synthesis of proteins which make up
>> life. This is clear and positive evidence pointing to creation
>> by an awesome Creator.
He has had the work of both the late Sidney Fox in proto cells, and
that of Jack Szostak which won a Nobel Prize pointed out to him over
and over again.
August Rode
Mar 25, 2013, 4:48:29 PM3/25/13
to
On Mar 25, 5:50 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:1e1291ae-c408-4b14...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
to force compounds to form that aren't otherwise naturally possible.
Do you believe that a "purposeful" creator would be able to make, for
example, dihelium? There is, after all, no mechanism for the synthesis
of such a compound.
Do you believe that what happens in cells during protein synthesis is
under the direct control of your purposeful creator? This should be
the case since you assert that no natural mechanism exists by which
proteins can be synthesized. If that isn't the case, doesn't that
suggest that the cell uses natural mechanisms to synthesize proteins?
Did you misspeak?
Budikka666
Mar 25, 2013, 5:36:47 PM3/25/13
to
On Mar 25, 4:50 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> I disagree with no facts. I simply challenge your fantasies.
Then why do you RUN AWAY every single time I offer you a discussion of
> I disagree with no facts. I simply challenge your fantasies.
these topics? Don't you claim to have an omnipotent god behind you?
If that's so, then of what are you so terrified?
WHY WILL YOU NOT FORMALLY DEBATE ME ON THESE TOPICS IF YOU'RE SO
CONFIDENT YOU'RE RIGHT AND HAVE THE FACTS ON YOUR SIDE?????
Your cowardly behavior betrays you on a daily basis. It's your
admission that you know perfectly well you are wrong and are either
too proud, or too cowardly, or too stupid to face the facts.
Got that, COWARD?
Andrew's Shameless record of running away and denying his god:
Free Lunch
Mar 25, 2013, 6:26:37 PM3/25/13
to
On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 20:10:07 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote
in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:43:05 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:13:20 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote
>>in alt.talk.creationism:
>>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>
><snip>
>>things that have been demonstrated to be false.
and misleading to varying degrees, that the rest of the Bible is
exaggerations, parables, and other fictional tools for teaching what the
priests want and that no gods can be seen to have had anything to do
with it.
>>>Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory posits 10 spatial and one temporal
>>>dimension in the multiverse that this universe is a part of.
>>
>>Please tell me what evidence supports it and why I should accept it.
>>
>Mathematical evidence, only. You are entirely free to cop out and
>reject all this if such is your sovereign choice.
Yes, the hypothesis is consistent with the math, but it is not a theory,
yet, because no method of testing it has been developed.
>>>The Bible
>>>mentions levels of Heaven and these seem to fit in with the SS-M
>>>multiverse concept. Of course neither can be objectively proven, since
>>>these extra dimensions and God's domain are not "material" in our
>>>space/time.
>>
>>You have invented a fascinating Christian heresy. Do proceed.
>>swaths of Christian doctrine.
>>not flat than there is reason to claim that any gods exist.
>>
>>>Gordon
in alt.talk.creationism:
>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 19:43:05 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 18:13:20 -0500, Gordon <gord...@swbell.net> wrote
>>in alt.talk.creationism:
>>
>>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:54:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <g8ttk85bk69ds5iss...@4ax.com>,
>>>On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 15:54:05 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
>>><hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>>>
><snip>
>>>It continues to amaze me that so many "educated" people restrict their
>>>thinking to this four dimensional space/time that we are able to
>>>perceive and refuse to even consider the possibility that there is
>>>more to the whole setup.
>>
>>Almost every variation of Christianity demands that people believe
>>>thinking to this four dimensional space/time that we are able to
>>>perceive and refuse to even consider the possibility that there is
>>>more to the whole setup.
>>
>>things that have been demonstrated to be false.
>>
>Only if one tries to understand the Bible's information in a
>simplistic literal sense. It is mostly allegory, parable, etc., format
>and is easily understood if one won't cop out and take the position
>that the Bible doesn't make sense, literally.
So you agree that the stories found in Genesis are all literally false
>Only if one tries to understand the Bible's information in a
>simplistic literal sense. It is mostly allegory, parable, etc., format
>and is easily understood if one won't cop out and take the position
>that the Bible doesn't make sense, literally.
and misleading to varying degrees, that the rest of the Bible is
exaggerations, parables, and other fictional tools for teaching what the
priests want and that no gods can be seen to have had anything to do
with it.
>>>Super String-Membrane (SS-M) Theory posits 10 spatial and one temporal
>>>dimension in the multiverse that this universe is a part of.
>>
>>
>Mathematical evidence, only. You are entirely free to cop out and
>reject all this if such is your sovereign choice.
Yes, the hypothesis is consistent with the math, but it is not a theory,
yet, because no method of testing it has been developed.
>>>The Bible
>>>mentions levels of Heaven and these seem to fit in with the SS-M
>>>multiverse concept. Of course neither can be objectively proven, since
>>>these extra dimensions and God's domain are not "material" in our
>>>space/time.
>>
>>
>>>Does the fact that objective proof is not yet possible for us mean
>>>that the whole set of ideas should be scrapped?
>>
>>No, just the ones that have been proven to be false. That takes out huge
>>>Does the fact that objective proof is not yet possible for us mean
>>>that the whole set of ideas should be scrapped?
>>
>>swaths of Christian doctrine.
>>
>>>I'm thinking that
>>>ancient people who thought the earth was flat were confronted with
>>>similar decisions and it took a while for them to gather enough
>>>information and insight to enable them to confirm that the earth is
>>>indeed spherical. Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
>>>God exists within those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory?
>>
>>There was far more reason for the ancients to realize that the earth was
>>>I'm thinking that
>>>ancient people who thought the earth was flat were confronted with
>>>similar decisions and it took a while for them to gather enough
>>>information and insight to enable them to confirm that the earth is
>>>indeed spherical. Will we eventually be able to similarly "prove" that
>>>God exists within those extra dimensions posited by SS-M Theory?
>>
>>not flat than there is reason to claim that any gods exist.
>>
>>>Gordon
Free Lunch
Mar 25, 2013, 6:59:25 PM3/25/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 00:16:26 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Not only does Andrew not have criteria, he has a religious objection to
all valid criteria.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
all valid criteria.
Ralph
Mar 25, 2013, 7:23:25 PM3/25/13
to
Smiler
Mar 25, 2013, 10:27:59 PM3/25/13
to
The above is merely your excuse for not posting any evidence.
When theists tell us they have evidence, we _know_ they're lying.
All they have are beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books, NONE of which are
evidence.
Do you have any evidence which is not belief, opinion or drawn from a
'holy' book? L.O.V.E, Logical, Objective, Verifiable Evidence? I bet you
haven't, as no-one has _ever_ had any such evidence, since the beginning
of written history.
If you have such evidence, I would be most pleased to see it, as I expect
many other atheists would also be, and there would be a Nobel Prize
waiting for you.
Use this space to show your evidence:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Andrew
Mar 25, 2013, 11:04:52 PM3/25/13
to
"Ralph" wrote in message news:846dnfzLf5zgCs3M...@giganews.com...
> Andrew wrote:
Ralph, RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are *already*
> Andrew wrote:
alive. Also, the nucleotides (of which RNA is made) require for
-their- synthesis the mechanism to do so that is in ~living~ cells.
Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
-their- synthesis the mechanism to do so that is in ~living~ cells.
Andrew
Mar 25, 2013, 11:51:24 PM3/25/13
to
"August Rode" wrote in message news:0fd3e0d0-c4e3-4cc1...@k1g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> If that isn't the case, doesn't that suggest that the cell uses natural
> mechanisms to synthesize proteins?
Yes, but there is no abiotic mechanism.
> Did you misspeak?
No.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >> Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
>> >> they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.
>>
>> > So facts are foolish if they disagree with your delusional lies..
>>
>> I disagree with no facts. I simply challenge your fantasies.
>>
>> Here is a little biochemical axiom that will help you, and
>> the chemists you cited above.
>>
>> "Amino acids will not link to form a biological protein,
>> apart from the mechanism to do so which is in cells that
>> are *already* alive."
>>
>> This means than apart from a purposeful creation, there is
>> no mechanism for the synthesis of proteins which make up
>> life. This is clear and positive evidence pointing to creation
>> by an awesome Creator.
>
> This is tantamount to saying that a "purposeful" creator would be able
> to force compounds to form that aren't otherwise naturally possible.
> Do you believe that a "purposeful" creator would be able to make, for
> example, dihelium? There is, after all, no mechanism for the synthesis
> of such a compound.
>
> Do you believe that what happens in cells during protein synthesis is
> under the direct control of your purposeful creator? This should be
> the case since you assert that no natural mechanism exists by which
> proteins can be synthesized.
The mechanism is a product of special Creation.
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >> Perhaps if these chemists learned a little more biochemistry
>> >> they wouldn't have made such a foolish statement.
>>
>> > So facts are foolish if they disagree with your delusional lies..
>>
>> I disagree with no facts. I simply challenge your fantasies.
>>
>> Here is a little biochemical axiom that will help you, and
>> the chemists you cited above.
>>
>> "Amino acids will not link to form a biological protein,
>> apart from the mechanism to do so which is in cells that
>> are *already* alive."
>>
>> This means than apart from a purposeful creation, there is
>> no mechanism for the synthesis of proteins which make up
>> life. This is clear and positive evidence pointing to creation
>> by an awesome Creator.
>
> This is tantamount to saying that a "purposeful" creator would be able
> to force compounds to form that aren't otherwise naturally possible.
> Do you believe that a "purposeful" creator would be able to make, for
> example, dihelium? There is, after all, no mechanism for the synthesis
> of such a compound.
>
> Do you believe that what happens in cells during protein synthesis is
> under the direct control of your purposeful creator? This should be
> the case since you assert that no natural mechanism exists by which
> proteins can be synthesized.
> If that isn't the case, doesn't that suggest that the cell uses natural
> mechanisms to synthesize proteins?
> Did you misspeak?
No.
Budikka666
Mar 25, 2013, 11:56:22 PM3/25/13
to
On Mar 25, 10:04 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THE GUTS TO FACE ME ONE ON ONE?
> Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
Every time I challenge you to a formal debate you RUN AWAY thereby
*proving* that your claim that you have an omnipotent god bakcign you
up is a LIE!
So here it is again so you can prove it again: You post one item of
positive scientific evidence for a young-Earth, or for a creator, and
I will respond by refuting it with solid science or by posting one of
my own for an ancient Earth, or for abiogensis or for evolution.
Let's proceed in that fashion, alternating, and see who runs out
first. All you need to start is ***ONE*** item of ***positive***
***scientific*** evidence. just one. One single item. Can you not
even manage that? With an omnipotent god behind you (so you claim)
CAN YOU NTO EVEN MANAGE TO POST ONE ITEM?
YOU have run out of the thread every single time I've offered you this
challenge. Go ahead and run again and prove to every one of your
Christer ilk that your god is a lie and you dare not face me.
Go on. I'll wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.
Budikka
Virgil
Mar 26, 2013, 12:38:26 AM3/26/13
to
In article <fM2dnSlwBOclkszM...@earthlink.com>,
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
Nothing of cinsequnce.
--
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
Nothing of cinsequnce.
--
Father Haskell
Mar 26, 2013, 3:00:31 AM3/26/13
to
On Mar 25, 11:04 pm, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Ralph" wrote in messagenews:846dnfzLf5zgCs3M...@giganews.com...
Go 10 minutes without praying. Feel any different?
Go 10 minutes without breathing.
> "Ralph" wrote in messagenews:846dnfzLf5zgCs3M...@giganews.com...
Go 10 minutes without breathing.
Andrew
Mar 26, 2013, 3:14:59 AM3/26/13
to
"Father Haskell" wrote in message news:a45064e7-e866-47a8...@r6g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
"Andrew" wrote:
-
- Go 10 minutes without praying. Feel any different?
-
- Go 10 minutes without breathing.
"Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD.
Praise ye the LORD."
"Andrew" wrote:
- Go 10 minutes without praying. Feel any different?
-
- Go 10 minutes without breathing.
"Let every thing that hath breath praise the LORD.
Praise ye the LORD."
Message has been deleted
Andrew
Mar 26, 2013, 10:01:38 AM3/26/13
to
"August Rode" wrote in message news:51517e23$0$37981$862e...@ngroups.net...
> And lo, on Mar 25, 2013 did Andrew spake unto the multitudes, saying:
> So what's your actual claim? That all chemical reactions are natural and did
> not need to be created *except* for protein synthesis reactions which did?
> Would you like to know the name of that particular logical fallacy?
> protein and formed microparticles." It's always fun learning things that
> turn what one thought one knew on its head.
From 1963 even, and was discredited long ago.
> And lo, on Mar 25, 2013 did Andrew spake unto the multitudes, saying:
> not need to be created *except* for protein synthesis reactions which did?
> Would you like to know the name of that particular logical fallacy?
>
>> > If that isn't the case, doesn't that suggest that the cell uses natural
>> > mechanisms to synthesize proteins?
>>
>> Yes, but there is no abiotic mechanism.
>
> You might like to look up a paper named "Abiotic production of primitive
>> > If that isn't the case, doesn't that suggest that the cell uses natural
>> > mechanisms to synthesize proteins?
>>
>> Yes, but there is no abiotic mechanism.
>
> protein and formed microparticles." It's always fun learning things that
> turn what one thought one knew on its head.
From 1963 even, and was discredited long ago.
August Rode
Mar 26, 2013, 11:27:13 AM3/26/13
to
On Mar 26, 10:01 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "August Rode" wrote in messagenews:51517e23$0$37981$862e...@ngroups.net...
Indeed. That's how long most of us have known that proteins can be
produced abiotically.
> and was discredited long ago.
Could you point me to the criticisms of the paper that you're familiar
with? Obviously, you wouldn't have the unmitigated gall to simply
assert the discreditation.
> "August Rode" wrote in messagenews:51517e23$0$37981$862e...@ngroups.net...
produced abiotically.
> and was discredited long ago.
with? Obviously, you wouldn't have the unmitigated gall to simply
assert the discreditation.
Christopher A. Lee
Mar 26, 2013, 2:22:59 PM3/26/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 10:58:33 GMT, "August Rode" <aug....@gmail.com>
wrote:
>And lo, on Mar 25, 2013 did Andrew spake unto the multitudes, saying:
subscription to read the entire PDF.
He's lying because he has been given Fox's work previously, but in a
form that was a presentation for the interested layman.
Fox wasn't even the first to produce thermal proteins - he was
researching them when he stumbled on the proto-cells Andrew is also in
denial about.
>> > Did you misspeak?
>>
>> No.
wrote:
>And lo, on Mar 25, 2013 did Andrew spake unto the multitudes, saying:
>So what's your actual claim? That all chemical reactions are natural and did
>not need to be created *except* for protein synthesis reactions which did?
>Would you like to know the name of that particular logical fallacy?
>
>not need to be created *except* for protein synthesis reactions which did?
>Would you like to know the name of that particular logical fallacy?
>
>> > If that isn't the case, doesn't that suggest that the cell uses natural
>> > mechanisms to synthesize proteins?
>>
>> Yes, but there is no abiotic mechanism.
>
>> > mechanisms to synthesize proteins?
>>
>> Yes, but there is no abiotic mechanism.
>
>You might like to look up a paper named "Abiotic production of primitive
>protein and formed microparticles." It's always fun learning things that
>turn what one thought one knew on its head.
By Sidney Fox. I would love to read it but that requires a paid
>protein and formed microparticles." It's always fun learning things that
>turn what one thought one knew on its head.
subscription to read the entire PDF.
He's lying because he has been given Fox's work previously, but in a
form that was a presentation for the interested layman.
Fox wasn't even the first to produce thermal proteins - he was
researching them when he stumbled on the proto-cells Andrew is also in
denial about.
>> > Did you misspeak?
>>
>> No.
Free Lunch
Mar 26, 2013, 5:50:26 PM3/26/13
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 20:56:22 -0700 (PDT), Budikka666
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
And Andrew will make you continue to wait because he worships ignorance
as his shield and uses dishonesty as his sword of foolishness. He
preaches religious doctrines that he knows are indefensible and refuses
to consider the fact that he could be wrong.
Andrew worships himself and his own hubris.
<budi...@netscape.net> wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
as his shield and uses dishonesty as his sword of foolishness. He
preaches religious doctrines that he knows are indefensible and refuses
to consider the fact that he could be wrong.
Andrew worships himself and his own hubris.
Dakota
Mar 26, 2013, 6:22:44 PM3/26/13
to
month. Chemistry was not one of my favorite subjects so it's been slow
going. The book's about 320 pages and I'm halfway through.
The book details the difficulty of establishing life in a laboratory
and the impossibility of determining how life on our planet began.
Here's the Amazon link to it. I was astonished to see the price. I
bought it in the local Y's Buys thrift shop for a buck or two.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/c8r87k5
This link provides more info:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/c3hycwa
The author presents the subject in a lecture at Case Western Reserve
University at this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrMuFpGlcpk
Budikka666
Mar 26, 2013, 11:03:32 PM3/26/13
to
Smiler
Mar 26, 2013, 11:05:30 PM3/26/13
to
Smiler
Mar 26, 2013, 11:14:21 PM3/26/13
to
Somehow, he believes that his supposed god's commandment not to lie
doesn't apply to him. If his supposed god does exist, I hope he has
asbestos underwear.
Andrew
Mar 27, 2013, 2:16:44 AM3/27/13
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:10e8d57a-c526-41ca...@r1g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
return to your God, your loving Heavenly Father?
> Every time I challenge you to a formal debate you
> RUN AWAY
Every time you are invited to come back to God,
your loving Heavenly Father, you RUN AWAY!
> Go on. I'll wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.
He is still waiting, and waiting - for YOU.
Since He is waiting, just come to Him now because
the clock is ticking and time is flying.
> Budikka
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
>
> WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THE GUTS
> TO FACE ME ONE ON ONE?
Rather when are you going to find the courage to
>
>> Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
>
> WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THE GUTS
> TO FACE ME ONE ON ONE?
return to your God, your loving Heavenly Father?
> Every time I challenge you to a formal debate you
> RUN AWAY
your loving Heavenly Father, you RUN AWAY!
> Go on. I'll wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.
Since He is waiting, just come to Him now because
the clock is ticking and time is flying.
> Budikka
Andrew
Dreamer In Colore
Mar 27, 2013, 2:22:04 AM3/27/13
to
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 23:16:44 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote:
How utterly creepy. I'm picturing some wizened old thing sitting on a
throne, just waiting for Budikka. Doing nothing else, of course, but
waiting for Budikka.
Well, since the loving Heavenly Father is omniscient, then he probably
already knows that Budikka's holding her middle finger in a fetchingly
upright position, and since the loving Heavenly Father is omnipotent,
then he can certainly afford to just pluck her from the earthly
firmament whenever he so chooses.
Oh, did you mean to imply that he wants Budikka to come freely to him?
Well then, he'll just have to wait.
He's probably got infinite patience, after all, and he's ideally
virtuous too... so he's got that whole patience is a virtue thing
down. If you're in such a hurry... why don't you go see him and tell
him that she'll be a little late?
Cheers,
Dreamer
wrote:
throne, just waiting for Budikka. Doing nothing else, of course, but
waiting for Budikka.
Well, since the loving Heavenly Father is omniscient, then he probably
already knows that Budikka's holding her middle finger in a fetchingly
upright position, and since the loving Heavenly Father is omnipotent,
then he can certainly afford to just pluck her from the earthly
firmament whenever he so chooses.
Oh, did you mean to imply that he wants Budikka to come freely to him?
Well then, he'll just have to wait.
He's probably got infinite patience, after all, and he's ideally
virtuous too... so he's got that whole patience is a virtue thing
down. If you're in such a hurry... why don't you go see him and tell
him that she'll be a little late?
Cheers,
Dreamer
Message has been deleted
Ralph
Mar 27, 2013, 5:20:13 PM3/27/13
to
really are as stupid as you appear.
Smiler
Mar 27, 2013, 7:01:10 PM3/27/13
to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 11:21:06 +0000, August Rode wrote:
> And lo, on Mar 26, 2013 did Smiler spake unto the multitudes, saying:
> catch flies with honey as vinegar doesn't seem to work. "And how's that
> working out?" I hear you ask. Piss poor, I'm afraid. These flies don't
> seem to like honey all that much either.
The flies we get here are attracted to the rotting meat of religion far
more than either honey or vinegar.
> And lo, on Mar 26, 2013 did Smiler spake unto the multitudes, saying:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:27:13 -0700, August Rode wrote:
>> > On Mar 26, 10:01�am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> > On Mar 26, 10:01�am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>> >> > You might like to look up a paper named "Abiotic production of
>> >> > primitive protein and formed microparticles." It's always fun
>> >> > learning
>> >> > things that turn what one thought one knew on its head.
>> >>
>> >> From 1963 even,
>> >
>> > Indeed. That's how long most of us have known that proteins can be
>> > produced abiotically.
>> >
>> >> and was discredited long ago.
>> >
>> > Could you point me to the criticisms of the paper that you're familiar
>> > with? Obviously, you wouldn't have the unmitigated gall to simply
>> > assert the discreditation.
>>
>> You vastly underestimate both Andrew's gall and his capacity for lying.
>> Somehow, he believes that his supposed god's commandment not to lie
>> doesn't apply to him. If his supposed god does exist, I hope he has
>> asbestos underwear.
>
> I assure you, O Grinning One, that I do not. I am attempting, however, to
>> >> > You might like to look up a paper named "Abiotic production of
>> >> > primitive protein and formed microparticles." It's always fun
>> >> > learning
>> >> > things that turn what one thought one knew on its head.
>> >>
>> >> From 1963 even,
>> >
>> > Indeed. That's how long most of us have known that proteins can be
>> > produced abiotically.
>> >
>> >> and was discredited long ago.
>> >
>> > Could you point me to the criticisms of the paper that you're familiar
>> > with? Obviously, you wouldn't have the unmitigated gall to simply
>> > assert the discreditation.
>>
>> You vastly underestimate both Andrew's gall and his capacity for lying.
>> Somehow, he believes that his supposed god's commandment not to lie
>> doesn't apply to him. If his supposed god does exist, I hope he has
>> asbestos underwear.
>
> catch flies with honey as vinegar doesn't seem to work. "And how's that
> working out?" I hear you ask. Piss poor, I'm afraid. These flies don't
> seem to like honey all that much either.
The flies we get here are attracted to the rotting meat of religion far
more than either honey or vinegar.
Smiler
Mar 27, 2013, 7:04:05 PM3/27/13
to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:20:13 -0400, Ralph wrote:
> On 3/27/2013 2:16 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in message
>> news:10e8d57a-c526-41ca...@r1g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
>>> WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THE GUTS
>>> TO FACE ME ONE ON ONE?
>> Rather when are you going to find the courage to return to your God,
>> your loving Heavenly Father?
>>
>>> Every time I challenge you to a formal debate you RUN AWAY
>> Every time you are invited to come back to God, your loving Heavenly
>> Father, you RUN AWAY!
>>
>>> Go on. I'll wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.
>> He is still waiting, and waiting - for YOU.
>>
>> Since He is waiting, just come to Him now because the clock is ticking
>> and time is flying.
>>
>
> On 3/27/2013 2:16 AM, Andrew wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote in message
>> news:10e8d57a-c526-41ca...@r1g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
>>> WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THE GUTS
>>> TO FACE ME ONE ON ONE?
>> Rather when are you going to find the courage to return to your God,
>> your loving Heavenly Father?
>>
>>> Every time I challenge you to a formal debate you RUN AWAY
>> Every time you are invited to come back to God, your loving Heavenly
>> Father, you RUN AWAY!
>>
>>> Go on. I'll wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.
>> He is still waiting, and waiting - for YOU.
>>
>> Since He is waiting, just come to Him now because the clock is ticking
>> and time is flying.
>>
>
> You know Andrew, I can't tell if you are just yanking Bud's chain or you
> really are as stupid as you appear.
My vote goes to the latter option.
> really are as stupid as you appear.
Syd M.
Mar 27, 2013, 7:11:18 PM3/27/13
to
On Mar 26, 10:01 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "August Rode" wrote in messagenews:51517e23$0$37981$862e...@ngroups.net...
PDW
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Christopher A. Lee
Mar 27, 2013, 8:47:38 PM3/27/13
to
The paper was Sidney Fox's in a peer reviewed professional journal.
But unfortunately it needs a paid subscrption to read it.
He was earlier given a presentation that Fox made for the intelligent
layman, which took his audience through the production of thermal
proteins to the formation of simple proto-cells.
And instead of reading it he looked for something he imagined refuted
it which cites what claimed to be an article by scientists refuting
Fox's work.
But the article was Fox's own.
And they didn't even realise it.
The first of the two quotes had him disparaging his own work in the
third person. Work which he had shown the scientific community from
start to end.
The second was a paraphrase of one of Fox's tests that didn't work,
saying that the result was a useless chemical stain - when the rest of
the presentation was all about the cases that did work including the
differences with that one.
Don't expect any honesty let alone intelligence from this one.
>PDW
Andrew
Mar 28, 2013, 6:09:05 AM3/28/13
to
"August Rode" wrote in message news:51538018$0$43214$862e...@ngroups.net...
Let is review what we know so far..
Proteins are large biological molecules consisting of
one or more chains of amino acids that perform a vast
array of functions within all living organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
Amino acids do not link to form proteins apart from
the mechanism to do so that is in the genome of cells
that are *already* alive." http://alturl.com/ohywe
This simple fact shows that apart from a purposeful
This is why all atheistic origin of life researchers have
been, and will be, unable to make any progress beyond
this point.
Andrew
Proteins are large biological molecules consisting of
one or more chains of amino acids that perform a vast
array of functions within all living organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
Amino acids do not link to form proteins apart from
the mechanism to do so that is in the genome of cells
that are *already* alive." http://alturl.com/ohywe
This simple fact shows that apart from a purposeful
creation, there is no mechanism for the synthesis of
proteins which make up all living things.
This is why all atheistic origin of life researchers have
been, and will be, unable to make any progress beyond
this point.
Andrew
Message has been deleted
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 28, 2013, 7:47:49 AM3/28/13
to
In article <htGdnaEtBKe4i8nM...@earthlink.com>,
What is this "atheistic origin of life" of which you speak?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
What is this "atheistic origin of life" of which you speak?
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Andrew
Mar 28, 2013, 7:57:16 AM3/28/13
to
"August Rode" wrote in message news:51542274$0$43696$862e...@ngroups.net...
> doesn't mention abiotic construction of proteins because it's specifically
> about protein synthesis within cells.
Because that is where protein is synthesized.
>> This simple fact shows that apart from a purposeful
>> creation, there is no mechanism for the synthesis of
>> proteins which make up all living things.
>
> There is no evidence that supports a purposeful creation. You don't get to
> claim that B is true simply because you assert that A is false, especially
> when C is a perfectly viable alternative:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis>
But your C (RNA world) is not a perfectly viable alternative.
RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are already alive.
And the nucleotides, of which the RNA is made, require for
their synthesis the *mechanism* to do so that is in living cells.
>> This is why all atheistic origin of life researchers have
>> been, and will be, unable to make any progress beyond
>> this point.
>
> And of course, "theistic research" is an oxymoron.
By so stating, you reveal that you are in a box, and are
unwilling to consider any truth that is outside thereof.
> Andrew spake unto the multitudes, saying:
>> "August Rode" wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> "August Rode" wrote:
>
>
>> >>> > >> > If that isn't the case, doesn't that suggest that the cell uses
>> >>> > >> > natural mechanisms to synthesize proteins?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >> Yes, but there is no abiotic mechanism.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > You might like to look up a paper named "Abiotic production
>> >>> > > of primitive protein and formed microparticles." It's always fun
>> >>> > > learning things that turn what one thought one knew on its head.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > From 1963 even, and was discredited long ago.
>> >>>
>> >>> Just refuse to admit to being wrong, huh?
>>
>> Let is review what we know so far..
>>
>> Proteins are large biological molecules consisting of
>> one or more chains of amino acids that perform a vast
>> array of functions within all living organisms.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
>>
>> Amino acids do not link to form proteins apart from
>> the mechanism to do so that is in the genome of cells
>> that are *already* alive." http://alturl.com/ohywe
>
> You do know that your link doesn't support your assertion, right? Your link
>> >>> > >> > If that isn't the case, doesn't that suggest that the cell uses
>> >>> > >> > natural mechanisms to synthesize proteins?
>> >>> >
>> >>> > >> Yes, but there is no abiotic mechanism.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > You might like to look up a paper named "Abiotic production
>> >>> > > of primitive protein and formed microparticles." It's always fun
>> >>> > > learning things that turn what one thought one knew on its head.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > From 1963 even, and was discredited long ago.
>> >>>
>> >>> Just refuse to admit to being wrong, huh?
>>
>> Let is review what we know so far..
>>
>> Proteins are large biological molecules consisting of
>> one or more chains of amino acids that perform a vast
>> array of functions within all living organisms.
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
>>
>> Amino acids do not link to form proteins apart from
>> the mechanism to do so that is in the genome of cells
>> that are *already* alive." http://alturl.com/ohywe
>
> doesn't mention abiotic construction of proteins because it's specifically
> about protein synthesis within cells.
Because that is where protein is synthesized.
>> This simple fact shows that apart from a purposeful
>> creation, there is no mechanism for the synthesis of
>> proteins which make up all living things.
>
> claim that B is true simply because you assert that A is false, especially
> when C is a perfectly viable alternative:
>
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis>
But your C (RNA world) is not a perfectly viable alternative.
RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are already alive.
And the nucleotides, of which the RNA is made, require for
their synthesis the *mechanism* to do so that is in living cells.
>> This is why all atheistic origin of life researchers have
>> been, and will be, unable to make any progress beyond
>> this point.
>
By so stating, you reveal that you are in a box, and are
unwilling to consider any truth that is outside thereof.
Andrew
Mar 28, 2013, 8:04:17 AM3/28/13
to
"Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-F2FFEA...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
research in an atheistic only paradigm.
> "Andrew" wrote:
>
>
>> This is why all atheistic origin of life
>
> What is this "atheistic origin of life" of which you speak?
Origin of life researchers who conduct
>
>
>> This is why all atheistic origin of life
>
> What is this "atheistic origin of life" of which you speak?
research in an atheistic only paradigm.
Mitchell Holman
Mar 28, 2013, 8:32:28 AM3/28/13
to
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote in
news:BPSdnWa8zKO7rMnM...@earthlink.com:
As opposed to what - a religious only paradigm?
If so, what religion?
news:BPSdnWa8zKO7rMnM...@earthlink.com:
If so, what religion?
Christopher A. Lee
Mar 28, 2013, 11:37:29 AM3/28/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 04:47:49 -0700, Jeanne Douglas
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <htGdnaEtBKe4i8nM...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>> This is why all atheistic origin of life
>
>What is this "atheistic origin of life" of which you speak?
Moronic fundamentalists imagine scientific discoveries are
<hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>In article <htGdnaEtBKe4i8nM...@earthlink.com>,
> "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
>
>
>> This is why all atheistic origin of life
>
>What is this "atheistic origin of life" of which you speak?
fabrications by atheists to try and discredit a god which all normal
people "know" is self-evident, supremely important and tells us not to
fart in bed.
Message has been deleted
Budikka666
Mar 28, 2013, 5:53:03 PM3/28/13
to
On Mar 27, 1:16 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:10e8d57a-c526-41ca...@r1g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
And thank you once again for walking your idotic, slack-jawed,
drooling face right into another trap. Thanks for admitting that the
*only* thing you have to offer, notwithstanding your endless LIES
about evidence, is threats - threats from the purported "god of love.
How utterly pathetic you truly are. Even if you god were real and not
bullshit, I would spit in his divine face rather than spend eternity
with an asshole god like that. Got that this time moron?
Even if your god were real *and* was not the asshole he's portrayed to
be in the Bible, I would ***STILL*** refuse to spend eternity in
heaven if it also harbors SCUMMY, lowlife, jerk-off, lying, cowardly,
hypocritical, vacuous sons of bitches like you.
How many times to I have to kick you dumb ass with these ***FACTS***
before they actually sink in, you worthless stinking pile of festering
Christ trash? You really are the most stupid creationist in
"creation". lol!
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:10e8d57a-c526-41ca...@r1g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
drooling face right into another trap. Thanks for admitting that the
*only* thing you have to offer, notwithstanding your endless LIES
about evidence, is threats - threats from the purported "god of love.
How utterly pathetic you truly are. Even if you god were real and not
bullshit, I would spit in his divine face rather than spend eternity
with an asshole god like that. Got that this time moron?
Even if your god were real *and* was not the asshole he's portrayed to
be in the Bible, I would ***STILL*** refuse to spend eternity in
heaven if it also harbors SCUMMY, lowlife, jerk-off, lying, cowardly,
hypocritical, vacuous sons of bitches like you.
How many times to I have to kick you dumb ass with these ***FACTS***
before they actually sink in, you worthless stinking pile of festering
Christ trash? You really are the most stupid creationist in
"creation". lol!
Budikka
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 28, 2013, 6:45:35 PM3/28/13
to
Andrew
Mar 28, 2013, 6:54:37 PM3/28/13
to
"August Rode" wrote in message news:51547a50$0$43147$862e...@ngroups.net...
> And lo, on Mar 28, 2013 did Andrew spake unto the multitudes, saying:
> proteins can't be formed outside of cells.
Proteins are large biological molecules consisting of
one or more chains of amino acids that perform a vast
array of functions within all living organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
They are formed only within the mechanism to do so
in accepting this, because it is simply another truth
which says that our origin was from an intelligent
causation; aka, Creation.
>> >> This simple fact shows that apart from a purposeful
>> >> creation, there is no mechanism for the synthesis of
>> >> proteins which make up all living things.
>> >
>> > There is no evidence that supports a purposeful creation. You don't get
>> > to claim that B is true simply because you assert that A is false,
>> > especially when C is a perfectly viable alternative:
>> >
>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis>
>>
>> But your C (RNA world) is not a perfectly viable alternative.
>> RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are already alive.
>> And the nucleotides, of which the RNA is made, require for
>> their synthesis the *mechanism* to do so that is in living cells.
>>
>> >> This is why all atheistic origin of life researchers have
>> >> been, and will be, unable to make any progress beyond
>> >> this point.
>> >
>> > And of course, "theistic research" is an oxymoron.
>>
>> By so stating, you reveal that you are in a box, and are
>> unwilling to consider any truth that is outside thereof.
>
> I am willing to consider any truth provided that there is a concrete reason
> for doing so.
The problem arises when a new truth has implications that require
a change in your preconceived understanding of life and the universe.
> Out of curiosity, how does atheistic research differ from theistic research
> in your opinion? If, for example, theistic research had been used to
> determine whether or not the Higgs boson was real or not, how would the
> research program have been different?
No basic difference, because you are simply learning more about God's
creation.
> And lo, on Mar 28, 2013 did Andrew spake unto the multitudes, saying:
>> "August Rode" wrote in message news:51542274$0$43696$862e...@ngroups.net...
>> > Andrew spake unto the multitudes, saying:
>> >> "August Rode" wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> >>> > >> > If that isn't the case, doesn't that suggest that the cell uses
>> >> >>> > >> > natural mechanisms to synthesize proteins?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > >> Yes, but there is no abiotic mechanism.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > > You might like to look up a paper named "Abiotic production
>> >> >>> > > of primitive protein and formed microparticles." It's always fun
>> >> >>> > > learning things that turn what one thought one knew on its head.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > From 1963 even, and was discredited long ago.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Just refuse to admit to being wrong, huh?
>> >>
>> >> Let is review what we know so far..
>> >>
>> >> Proteins are large biological molecules consisting of
>> >> one or more chains of amino acids that perform a vast
>> >> array of functions within all living organisms.
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
>> >>
>> >> Amino acids do not link to form proteins apart from
>> >> the mechanism to do so that is in the genome of cells
>> >> that are *already* alive." http://alturl.com/ohywe
>> >
>> > You do know that your link doesn't support your assertion, right?
>> > Andrew spake unto the multitudes, saying:
>> >> "August Rode" wrote:
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> >> >>> > >> > If that isn't the case, doesn't that suggest that the cell uses
>> >> >>> > >> > natural mechanisms to synthesize proteins?
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > >> Yes, but there is no abiotic mechanism.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > > You might like to look up a paper named "Abiotic production
>> >> >>> > > of primitive protein and formed microparticles." It's always fun
>> >> >>> > > learning things that turn what one thought one knew on its head.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > From 1963 even, and was discredited long ago.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Just refuse to admit to being wrong, huh?
>> >>
>> >> Let is review what we know so far..
>> >>
>> >> Proteins are large biological molecules consisting of
>> >> one or more chains of amino acids that perform a vast
>> >> array of functions within all living organisms.
>> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
>> >>
>> >> Amino acids do not link to form proteins apart from
>> >> the mechanism to do so that is in the genome of cells
>> >> that are *already* alive." http://alturl.com/ohywe
>> >
>> > You do know that your link doesn't support your assertion, right?
>> > link doesn't mention abiotic construction of proteins because it's
>> > specifically about protein synthesis within cells.
>>
>> Because that is where protein is synthesized.
>
> Did you miss the point? The link doesn't support your assertion that
>> > specifically about protein synthesis within cells.
>>
>> Because that is where protein is synthesized.
>
> proteins can't be formed outside of cells.
Proteins are large biological molecules consisting of
one or more chains of amino acids that perform a vast
array of functions within all living organisms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein
that is in the genome of cells that are *already* alive.
I know that an atheist would have great difficulty
in accepting this, because it is simply another truth
which says that our origin was from an intelligent
causation; aka, Creation.
>> >> This simple fact shows that apart from a purposeful
>> >> creation, there is no mechanism for the synthesis of
>> >> proteins which make up all living things.
>> >
>> > There is no evidence that supports a purposeful creation. You don't get
>> > to claim that B is true simply because you assert that A is false,
>> > especially when C is a perfectly viable alternative:
>> >
>> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis>
>>
>> But your C (RNA world) is not a perfectly viable alternative.
>> RNA is not synthesized except in cells that are already alive.
>> And the nucleotides, of which the RNA is made, require for
>> their synthesis the *mechanism* to do so that is in living cells.
>>
>> >> This is why all atheistic origin of life researchers have
>> >> been, and will be, unable to make any progress beyond
>> >> this point.
>> >
>> > And of course, "theistic research" is an oxymoron.
>>
>> By so stating, you reveal that you are in a box, and are
>> unwilling to consider any truth that is outside thereof.
>
> for doing so.
The problem arises when a new truth has implications that require
a change in your preconceived understanding of life and the universe.
> Out of curiosity, how does atheistic research differ from theistic research
> in your opinion? If, for example, theistic research had been used to
> determine whether or not the Higgs boson was real or not, how would the
> research program have been different?
No basic difference, because you are simply learning more about God's
creation.
Andrew
Mar 28, 2013, 6:56:22 PM3/28/13
to
"Mitchell Holman" wrote in message news:XnsA1914C6755D2E...@216.196.121.131...
> "Andrew" wrote in news:BPSdnWa8zKO7rMnM...@earthlink.com:
research.
> "Andrew" wrote in news:BPSdnWa8zKO7rMnM...@earthlink.com:
>> "Jeanne Douglas" wrote in message news:hlwdjsd2-F2FFEA...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu..
>>> "Andrew" wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is why all atheistic origin of life
>>>
>>> What is this "atheistic origin of life" of which you speak?
>>
>> Origin of life researchers who conduct
>> research in an atheistic only paradigm.
>
> As opposed to what - a religious only paradigm?
As opposed to purely unbiased, empirical and objective
>>>
>>>
>>>> This is why all atheistic origin of life
>>>
>>> What is this "atheistic origin of life" of which you speak?
>>
>> Origin of life researchers who conduct
>> research in an atheistic only paradigm.
>
> As opposed to what - a religious only paradigm?
research.
Free Lunch
Mar 28, 2013, 6:55:44 PM3/28/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 07:32:28 -0500, Mitchell Holman <nomailverizon.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
One that requires a total rejection of reality.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Free Lunch
Mar 28, 2013, 7:02:30 PM3/28/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:56:22 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
That is what you falsely dismissed as "atheistic origin of life".
You have made it clear that you are completely unable to defend your
religious teachings and that you are afraid to have them tested. You
know your teachings cannot be defended. You know you preach nonsense.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
You have made it clear that you are completely unable to defend your
religious teachings and that you are afraid to have them tested. You
know your teachings cannot be defended. You know you preach nonsense.
Christopher A. Lee
Mar 28, 2013, 7:24:10 PM3/28/13
to
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 18:02:30 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
Morons like this one imagine there is something wrong with science if
its research doesn't lead to their god.
But it's not science's problem that nothing points in that direction.
wrote:
its research doesn't lead to their god.
But it's not science's problem that nothing points in that direction.
Smiler
Mar 28, 2013, 9:44:42 PM3/28/13
to
On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:28:22 +0000, August Rode wrote:
> And lo, on Mar 27, 2013 did Smiler spake unto the multitudes, saying:
> You mistyped "rotting meat" for "post-processed bull food".
Except that rotting meat is far more odiferous than their bullshit.
> And lo, on Mar 27, 2013 did Smiler spake unto the multitudes, saying:
Except that rotting meat is far more odiferous than their bullshit.
Smiler
Mar 28, 2013, 9:54:38 PM3/28/13
to
Andrew
Mar 29, 2013, 5:17:49 AM3/29/13
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:b379b4d9-573d-4f4f...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
Folks, Budikka *knows* there is a "creation".
And common sense tells you that there cannot
be a "creation" *unless* there is also a Creator.
Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
Thanks Budikka!
> Budikka
Andrew
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >> Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
>>
>> > WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THE GUTS
>> > TO FACE ME ONE ON ONE?
>>
>> Rather when are you going to find the courage to
>> return to your God, your loving Heavenly Father?
>>
>> > Every time I challenge you to a formal debate you
>> > RUN AWAY
>>
>> Every time you are invited to come back to God,
>> your loving Heavenly Father, you RUN AWAY!
>>
>> > Go on. I'll wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.
>>
>> He is still waiting, and waiting - for YOU.
>>
>> Since He is waiting, just come to Him now because
>> the clock is ticking and time is flying.
<>
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>>
>> >> Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
>>
>> > WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THE GUTS
>> > TO FACE ME ONE ON ONE?
>>
>> Rather when are you going to find the courage to
>> return to your God, your loving Heavenly Father?
>>
>> > Every time I challenge you to a formal debate you
>> > RUN AWAY
>>
>> Every time you are invited to come back to God,
>> your loving Heavenly Father, you RUN AWAY!
>>
>> > Go on. I'll wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.
>>
>> He is still waiting, and waiting - for YOU.
>>
>> Since He is waiting, just come to Him now because
>> the clock is ticking and time is flying.
<>
> You really are the most stupid creationist in "creation".
> lol!
That was a good one!
> lol!
Folks, Budikka *knows* there is a "creation".
And common sense tells you that there cannot
be a "creation" *unless* there is also a Creator.
Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
> Budikka
Andrew
RayHJohson
Mar 29, 2013, 5:23:48 AM3/29/13
to
On Mar 23, 9:58 pm, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
> http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-...
>
> Budikka
Abraham, the father of all Abrahmmic faiths including
Christianity, Judiasm and Islam, never spoke of Comets, and he never
spoke of Americans, the Chinese or the Eskimos either.
In fact, where is the evidence that he spoke of the Southern Baptists
or any American for that matter?
How can they exist if the Bible said nothing of them?
> http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-...
>
> Budikka
Abraham, the father of all Abrahmmic faiths including
Christianity, Judiasm and Islam, never spoke of Comets, and he never
spoke of Americans, the Chinese or the Eskimos either.
In fact, where is the evidence that he spoke of the Southern Baptists
or any American for that matter?
How can they exist if the Bible said nothing of them?
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 29, 2013, 5:32:29 AM3/29/13
to
In article <2IednaXeHqc9xsjM...@earthlink.com>,
Really uncool lying like that.
"Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:b379b4d9-573d-4f4f...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
> >>
> >> > WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THE GUTS
> >> > TO FACE ME ONE ON ONE?
> >>
> >> Rather when are you going to find the courage to
> >> return to your God, your loving Heavenly Father?
> >>
> >> > Every time I challenge you to a formal debate you
> >> > RUN AWAY
> >>
> >> Every time you are invited to come back to God,
> >> your loving Heavenly Father, you RUN AWAY!
> >>
> >> > Go on. I'll wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.
> >>
> >> He is still waiting, and waiting - for YOU.
> >>
> >> Since He is waiting, just come to Him now because
> >> the clock is ticking and time is flying.
>
> <>
>
> > You really are the most stupid creationist in "creation".
> > lol!
>
> That was a good one!
>
> Folks, Budikka *knows* there is a "creation".
She knows no such thing.
> "Budikka666" wrote in message
> news:b379b4d9-573d-4f4f...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >> "Budikka666" wrote:
> >> > "Andrew" wrote:
> >>
> >> >> Life was indeed created by an awesome Creator.
> >>
> >> > WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIND THE GUTS
> >> > TO FACE ME ONE ON ONE?
> >>
> >> Rather when are you going to find the courage to
> >> return to your God, your loving Heavenly Father?
> >>
> >> > Every time I challenge you to a formal debate you
> >> > RUN AWAY
> >>
> >> Every time you are invited to come back to God,
> >> your loving Heavenly Father, you RUN AWAY!
> >>
> >> > Go on. I'll wait. And wait. And wait. And wait.
> >>
> >> He is still waiting, and waiting - for YOU.
> >>
> >> Since He is waiting, just come to Him now because
> >> the clock is ticking and time is flying.
>
> <>
>
> > You really are the most stupid creationist in "creation".
> > lol!
>
> That was a good one!
>
> Folks, Budikka *knows* there is a "creation".
Really uncool lying like that.
Budikka666
Mar 29, 2013, 12:57:07 PM3/29/13
to
On Mar 29, 4:17 am, "Andrew" <andrew.321re...@usa.net> wrote:
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b379b4d9-573d-4f4f...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
unabashedly STUPID you've become? This is how you witness to us by
bearing one false witness after another?
Did you not see the quotes around the word, asshole? Or are you quite
simply too desperate or fucked up in the head to grasp their
significance? But hey, thanks for endlessly, blindly, and
monumentally stupidly walking into every single trap I set for you.
You really are hands-down the absolute dumbest fuck in the unverse.
Keep running you pathetic Chicken-For-Christ™:
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admits he has nothing to
offer:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5d95451e8d8c4a1?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4bb6ab05a33bab1a?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/dae5640e44de4e8b?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/52822b1a5c47205a?hl=en&scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank's most recent admission that his
omnipotent god is worthless in four threads simultaneously:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5d95451e8d8c4a1?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8b50cdfc13197e8?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/7b801d93211e51e7?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits he has no faith in his own
god:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits that even he doesn't believe:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
More excuses from Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/cbe97ddc53be5a00?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/59b246e0c8e3e4f9?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/986crjk
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e9b89ac33e01ce5b?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/836bea1f79468d9b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/728ceae4eb1d55e3?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/3a31410d460b908e?hl=en&scoring=d&
Budikka
> "Budikka666" wrote in messagenews:b379b4d9-573d-4f4f...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
> > "Andrew" wrote:
> > You really are the most stupid creationist in "creation".
> > lol!
>
> That was a good one!
>
> Folks, Budikka *knows* there is a "creation".
>
> And common sense tells you that there cannot
> be a "creation" *unless* there is also a Creator.
Really? This is how pathetic and desperate, and vacuous, and
> > You really are the most stupid creationist in "creation".
> > lol!
>
> That was a good one!
>
> Folks, Budikka *knows* there is a "creation".
>
> And common sense tells you that there cannot
> be a "creation" *unless* there is also a Creator.
unabashedly STUPID you've become? This is how you witness to us by
bearing one false witness after another?
Did you not see the quotes around the word, asshole? Or are you quite
simply too desperate or fucked up in the head to grasp their
significance? But hey, thanks for endlessly, blindly, and
monumentally stupidly walking into every single trap I set for you.
You really are hands-down the absolute dumbest fuck in the unverse.
Keep running you pathetic Chicken-For-Christ™:
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admits he has nothing to
offer:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5d95451e8d8c4a1?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4bb6ab05a33bab1a?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/dae5640e44de4e8b?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/52822b1a5c47205a?hl=en&scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank's most recent admission that his
omnipotent god is worthless in four threads simultaneously:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/f5d95451e8d8c4a1?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8b50cdfc13197e8?hl=en&scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/7b801d93211e51e7?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits he has no faith in his own
god:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank admits that even he doesn't believe:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/4970c8ea65babc59?scoring=d&
More excuses from Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/cbe97ddc53be5a00?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/59b246e0c8e3e4f9?scoring=d&
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from challenges in SIX THREADS
simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/8cpp6ru
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
authenticity of the "Shroud of Turin", Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9rm86aj
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
existence of Jesus Christ, miracle-working son of a god, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning
tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that
he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were
an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/8o3wsmg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/ec1a84272b3493f1?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate the
Noahic flood, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/9hpgy2v
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/db798efe8d1d0c97?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and present scientific
evidence in support of many wild claims he had made, Creationist
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not
support his LIES by turning tail and running like the rank coward that
he is, thereby proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and
fictitious god. If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this
loser actually *had* any faith, he would have trusted that god to
support him and he would have taken me up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/986crjk
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/fb6771658c489b66?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate ENCODE's
latest data, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank openly
admitted that he could not support his LIES by turning tail and
running like the rank coward that he is, thereby proving that he has
ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god. If there were an
omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had* any faith, he
would have trusted that god to support him and he would have taken me
up on my debate offer.
http://tinyurl.com/ckeaadm
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/c786b453f00abb9a?scoring=d&
Given the chance to stand up for his god and formally debate his 8
unsupported claims about information, Creationist Coward-For-Christ™
Andrew-a-Blank openly admitted that he could not support his LIES by
turning tail and running like the rank coward that he is, thereby
proving that he has ZERO FAITH in his worthless and fictitious god.
If there were an omnipotent creator god, and this loser actually *had*
any faith, he would have trusted that god to support him and he would
have taken me up on my debate offer.
So now you know the truth about Andrew-a-Blank - even *he* does not
truly believe in this god he espouses!
End of story.
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a simple question in
*another* SIX THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zghp7o
http://tinyurl.com/76a8chm
http://tinyurl.com/6q3q498
http://tinyurl.com/6n2swsr
http://tinyurl.com/7rvtlyu
http://tinyurl.com/7x4m3fv
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank Ran from a debate on DNA in *yet
another* TEN THREADS simultaneously:
http://tinyurl.com/7zcuwsb
http://tinyurl.com/7t47anq
http://tinyurl.com/7wvegqc
http://tinyurl.com/6rg67wc
http://tinyurl.com/8yqo8fw
http://tinyurl.com/77bopo8
http://tinyurl.com/86zwhj6
http://tinyurl.com/7zlzxtd
http://tinyurl.com/7eknx73
http://tinyurl.com/6lgcwpq
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank denies Christ thrice:
http://tinyurl.com/7x9c5wn
http://tinyurl.com/74h455e
http://tinyurl.com/7kl4hc7
Coward-For-Christ™ Andrew-a-Blank ran from debate:
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/7dd8ed410470f4c2?hl=en
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e8da88e0f6b5a76b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/245ef4c4f9f8933b?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/e9b89ac33e01ce5b?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/836bea1f79468d9b?hl=en&scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/728ceae4eb1d55e3?scoring=d&
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/3a31410d460b908e?hl=en&scoring=d&
Budikka
Budikka666
Mar 29, 2013, 12:59:45 PM3/29/13
to
On Mar 29, 4:23 am, RayHJohson <chaotica...@live.com> wrote:
> Abraham, the father of all Abrahmmic faiths including
> Christianity, Judiasm and Islam, never spoke of Comets, and he never
> spoke of Americans, the Chinese or the Eskimos either.
>
> In fact, where is the evidence that he spoke of the Southern Baptists
> or any American for that matter?
>
> How can they exist if the Bible said nothing of them?
Do you want to formally debate the existence of your god with me? No
> Abraham, the father of all Abrahmmic faiths including
> Christianity, Judiasm and Islam, never spoke of Comets, and he never
> spoke of Americans, the Chinese or the Eskimos either.
>
> In fact, where is the evidence that he spoke of the Southern Baptists
> or any American for that matter?
>
> How can they exist if the Bible said nothing of them?
one else can find the guts to do so. Do you have any faith in this
supposedly omnipotent god of yours, or will you run like Andrew and
everyone else and thereby admit you have no more belief in your god
than we do?
Budikka
Virgil
Mar 29, 2013, 2:46:30 PM3/29/13
to
> Folks, Budikka *knows* there is a "creation".
Only in the sense that she knows there is a "Santa CLaus", and a "tooth
fairy" and "unicorns", and such like.
--
vivapa...@aol.com
Mar 29, 2013, 5:41:31 PM3/29/13
to
On Saturday, March 23, 2013 6:58:10 PM UTC-7, Budikka666 wrote:
> http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-life-on-earth/
>
>
>
> Budikka
Nope. But it does a good job cleaning sinks.
> http://annesastronomynews.com/evidence-that-comets-could-have-seeded-life-on-earth/
>
>
>
> Budikka
Nope. But it does a good job cleaning sinks.
Free Lunch
Mar 29, 2013, 9:49:53 PM3/29/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 02:17:49 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Andrew again intentionally makes a fool of himself and embarrasses all
Americans and Christians. If this were 30 years ago, I would conclude
that he is a Soviet plant.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Americans and Christians. If this were 30 years ago, I would conclude
that he is a Soviet plant.
Andrew
Mar 29, 2013, 10:03:31 PM3/29/13
to
"Budikka666" wrote in message news:f2d26ace-6154-41e7...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> "Andrew" wrote:
> "Andrew" wrote:
>> "Budikka666" wrote:
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> > You really are the most stupid creationist in "creation".
>> > lol!
>>
>> That was a good one!
>>
>> Folks, Budikka *knows* there is a "creation".
>>
>> And common sense tells you that there cannot
>> be a "creation" *unless* there is also a Creator.
>
> Really?
Yes, and only a fool would deny it.
>> > "Andrew" wrote:
>
>> > You really are the most stupid creationist in "creation".
>> > lol!
>>
>> That was a good one!
>>
>> Folks, Budikka *knows* there is a "creation".
>>
>> And common sense tells you that there cannot
>> be a "creation" *unless* there is also a Creator.
>
> Really?
Free Lunch
Mar 29, 2013, 10:05:34 PM3/29/13
to
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 19:03:31 -0700, "Andrew" <andrew....@usa.net>
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
Why would I accept your claims when you have made it clear that you
refuse to deal with evidence, that you will lie about anything that fits
your religious doctrines, and that you will never repent of the lies you
have told us.
I would be a fool to follow anything you teach.
wrote in alt.talk.creationism:
refuse to deal with evidence, that you will lie about anything that fits
your religious doctrines, and that you will never repent of the lies you
have told us.
I would be a fool to follow anything you teach.
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 29, 2013, 11:15:18 PM3/29/13
to
In article <DtOdnV1Yxavy2svM...@earthlink.com>,
Only when you define fool as someone who refuses to believe things
without evidence.
without evidence.
Jeanne Douglas
Mar 29, 2013, 11:16:04 PM3/29/13
to
In article <g4hcl81om0eroe517...@4ax.com>,
Speaking of Soviet plants, is anybody here watching "The Americans"?
It's an amazing series.
It's an amazing series.
Budikka666
Mar 30, 2013, 8:48:28 AM3/30/13
to
So why *do* you deny the science that proves you wrong and put all
your faith not in any god but in science you dishonestly claim proves
you right?
Why do you have no faith in your supposedly omnipotent god? if you
had any faith at all, you would not be so cowardly about taking me on
in a debate. Your cowardice, lies, vacuity and hypocrisy betray you
with every message you post.
Budikka
your faith not in any god but in science you dishonestly claim proves
you right?
Why do you have no faith in your supposedly omnipotent god? if you
had any faith at all, you would not be so cowardly about taking me on
in a debate. Your cowardice, lies, vacuity and hypocrisy betray you
with every message you post.
Budikka
Ralph
Mar 30, 2013, 1:21:49 PM3/30/13
to
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages